Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: pudlofink on August 14, 2013, 07:56:44 am
-
this has been bothering me for too long, to get 2 printers or just one big one. :-\
I had thought that it would be useful to get something like the Canon ipf 8400 for big prints, say A2 and above, and also a smaller desktop printer such as Epson 3880 or Canon Pixma Pro 1 for handling the cut sheets for small prints, ie A3 and under.
But should I skip the extra learning curve of the smaller printer and just get a 44" printer to handle all work.
I don't mind the thought of hand feeding cut sheets into the big printer, so long as there are no problems with the paper alignment resulting in a mis-fired print and wasted paper. I also know that each time I do this i am getting a cheaper print because of the lower ink costs that come with the big carts in a big printer.
if I remember correctly I think the canon will accept cut sheets as small as 8" wide, or an A4 sheet. So I suppose I would have to limit my minimum print size to that then. (can't really see the value of selling a print smaller than this, or am I wrong?)
also am I right in using cut sheets A3 and smaller and having my roll sizes as 17", 24", 36", and 44" widths for the papers I will be using? I remember reading that not many rolls are available in sizes under the 17" size, and this seems to make sense to me on the surface.
totally new to this game and never owned a large format printer.
I look forward to resolving this and moving step closer to getting my first printer!
-
These printers liked to be used and don't like to sit idle, so don't get so many that they aren't being utilized. The #1 clogging problem is under utilization. There's a cost to maintaining these printers that's separate from your per print costs. My gut tells me you should get one big printer and use it as much as you can to minimize your expenses and hassle.
-
I have two Z3100 printer, a 44" loaded with BC Lyve canvas and a 24" that I use for cut sheets. Works out great asbi don't need to constantly change out the canvas when I want to print a cut sheet. I use the printers sporadically and have zero clogging problems. Just leave them on and they do their own scheduled print head maintenance cycles.
-
hi Scott, yes that's one of my fears, under utilization. I'd like to think that I am going to be making a reasonable number of prints (even 1 a day should keep it active and clog-free,?).
I see so by having one printer and a large one then any print I need to make would go through it and only it, thereby keeping it active. If I get a lot of orders for little prints and had two printers then it would become unutilized.
So the cut sheet abilities of a big roll printer are fine? It seems you have just said that.
If someone orders a little print and I can go up to something like the 8400 and it's easy and convenient and economical for me to run it through then I am happy. But if it goes through crooked or there's some other glitch then this is when I would be having some issues. I need to confirm that the big roll printers are nimble and capable for small stuff, even if they are not as 'ideal' as a desktop printer so to speak
-
hang on chez so you're saying that if I have a roll inserted and ready to go then in order to run a cut sheet through I need to unload the roll? I thought the sheet had it's own path and the roll could stay loaded, or does this vary from printer to printer?
Like the sound of the sporadic use with zero clogging problems. Does the auto maintenance it does, use much ink or not enough to get worked up about?
-
So the cut sheet abilities of a big roll printer are fine?
Yes. Letter sized sheets and larger are fine with all three brands. You'll have larger margins that you would with a smaller printer - that's part of the trade off with a larger faster printer. Expect ~ a one inch margin on the trailing edge.
hang on chez so you're saying that if I have a roll inserted and ready to go then in order to run a cut sheet through I need to unload the roll? I thought the sheet had it's own path and the roll could stay loaded, or does this vary from printer to printer?
You'll need to "unload" the roll to load sheets, and "eject" a sheet to load a roll. That said you can leave the roll on the spindle in the printer all the time - just not with the leading edge "loaded" into the printing path while you're printing sheets. Not a big deal.
One print a day is enough to keep them from clogging. If you're volume can be that low I'd really try to do it all on one printer.
-
You'll need to "unload" the roll to load sheets, and "eject" a sheet to load a roll. That said you can leave the roll on the spindle in the printer all the time - just not with the leading edge "loaded" into the printing path while you're printing sheets. Not a big deal.
that's what I like to hear! sounds doable.
Yes. Letter sized sheets and larger are fine with all three brands. You'll have larger margins that you would with a smaller printer - that's part of the trade off with a larger faster printer. Expect ~ a one inch margin on the trailing edge.
I'm not quite following the margins part here. I was hoping to be able to print full bleed right to the paper edge for sheets. Or with a blank border if I need to as well, around the edge of the sheet.
One print a day is enough to keep them from clogging. If you're volume can be that low I'd really try to do it all on one printer.
Not sure what to expect business wise. I'd like to get into photography one day but for now I'm going to take a chance doing what I know, my craft is illustration. By the way I will be printing vector graphics I made using illustrator, so I'm assuming that these large inkjets are the best printer type for this image? I haven't actually checked but I can't see what other printer would be.
-
I'm not quite following the margins part here. I was hoping to be able to print full bleed right to the paper edge for sheets.
No full bleed printing to cut sheets with the large format printers. I wouldn't even recommend it with the small printers. When pros need borderless printing they tend to print on a roll and trim it.
Not sure what to expect business wise. I'd like to get into photography one day but for now I'm going to take a chance doing what I know, my craft is illustration. By the way I will be printing vector graphics I made using illustrator, so I'm assuming that these large inkjets are the best printer type for this image? I haven't actually checked but I can't see what other printer would be.
If you're just getting into this then definitely just buy one printer and see how it goes. These are great for vector graphics. Choose your media carefully. An inexpensive satin or luster paper has a great bang for the buck.
-
I run a 44 inch Epson 9890 and a sheet feed 17 inch Epson 3880, but one of the reasons is the stupid Epson PK/MK ink switch.
However, it is useful to have a printer that will print as small as a 3.5 x 5 inch sheet, even though I do that rarely. It is also occasionally useful to be able to do borderless prints in smaller sheet sizes. The 3880 will go for weeks without printing and without clogging. The 9890 runs everyday.
Like most roll feed printers, the 9890 will only print full bleed at certain widths: 10", 13", 16", 17", 24", 36", and 44". But unlike Canon printers, it will go with only 3 mm borders for other sizes, no matter what the paper. It does need a 0.56 inch trailing edge for sheets. The driver will actually let me set it up for 3.5 x 5 inch sheets, but there is no way of actually loading a sheet that small.
Brian A
-
Like most roll feed printers, the 9890 will only print full bleed at certain widths: 10", 13", 16", 17", 24", 36", and 44".
But only for rolls, right? Not sheets. Same with Canon.
But unlike Canon printers, it will go with only 3 mm borders for other sizes, no matter what the paper.
An eight on an inch for Canon - this is on the sides.
It does need a 0.56 inch trailing edge for sheets.
Right where Canon needs an inch. This is because Canon has a inch of nozzles vs. Epson's half inch. This is the main reason why the Canon's are so much faster. The x900s have more nozzles, a larger trailing margin and match the speed of Canon. A natural trade off.
-
I have both the Epson 4900 and 9900. I use the 9900 mostly for the matte black ink, ie. fine art papers and matte canvas (Lyve) and the 4900 pretty much stays with PK black ink and handles the smaller prints (I do a LOT of 8x10s for corporate clients) and up to 17x22 (mostly 16x20), again with the PK ink. I thought of getting rid of the smaller printer after getting the larger one, but love having the flexibility of both. When I have large runs of 8x10s, I use both. I've had jobs of over 300 8x10s running through both printers.
-
Like the sound of the sporadic use with zero clogging problems. Does the auto maintenance it does, use much ink or not enough to get worked up about?
It uses very little ink....much less than printing out a photo every day, and it ensures all nozzles are checked.
-
It uses very little ink....much less than printing out a photo every day, and it ensures all nozzles are checked.
If you're talking about the Canon iPF printers, no, the maintenance sadly doesn't use enough ink to avoid clogging, vacuum, and the dreaded cleaning cycles. At least 1 8x10 per week is need for that.
-
But only for rolls, right? Not sheets. Same with Canon.
I have never tried borderless sheets through the 9890, so I don't know. Seems a bit pointless given the leading and trailing edge requirements.
An eight on an inch for Canon - this is on the sides.
Probably the same 3 mm converted into ancient US units
Right where Canon needs an inch. This is because Canon has a inch of nozzles vs. Epson's half inch. This is the main reason why the Canon's are so much faster. The x900s have more nozzles, a larger trailing margin and match the speed of Canon. A natural trade off.
Interesting, I didn't realize that Canon printers were faster. Have you any idea how much faster? A link to a comparison?
Though I don't see why an inch of of nozzles would need an inch of border, given a sheet feed printer like the Epson 3880 can make do with 3 mm borders all round. (Although illogically, the same printer can do 8 x 10 inches borderless, but not 8 x 12 inches borderless, without a RIP).
Brian A
-
If you're talking about the Canon iPF printers, no, the maintenance sadly doesn't use enough ink to avoid clogging, vacuum, and the dreaded cleaning cycles. At least 1 8x10 per week is need for that.
I'm talking about the HP printers that I use. Never had any clogging, used sporadically at times. Their automated nozzle maintenance does the job.
-
No full bleed printing to cut sheets with the large format printers. I wouldn't even recommend it with the small printers. When pros need borderless printing they tend to print on a roll and trim it.
Like most roll feed printers, the 9890 will only print full bleed at certain widths: 10", 13", 16", 17", 24", 36", and 44"
if I get these roll sizes, which are full bleed as you say, does this mean I won't have to trim any white paper off at all after the print comes out? the ink goes across the full width of the roll and the built in paper cutter slices the paper off at the precise end of the print? so rolls are really better, but if I want to make a print that has a white border around then sheets are an option? and I guess a 'trailing edge' doesn't apply to roll paper because there is no actual end of the paper, only the end of the roll when it eventually arrives 8)
I'm thinking I should make my final print sizes so that the short side of each image equals the width of each of these rolls (as above), and sell those sizes, to make things easier and minimize trimming. Is this a good idea or should I make my print sizes a certain size standard that's different to these roll widths?
If you're just getting into this then definitely just buy one printer and see how it goes. These are great for vector graphics. Choose your media carefully. An inexpensive satin or luster paper has a great bang for the buck.
thanks for suggesting a paper, as I am a complete paper novice at this stage. Are you saying that the luster paper is ideal for vector graphics? I also read that an enhanced matte paper is good for art type images and that a gloss paper is more for photographic work, is this true? The vectors I have are quite colorful, so I want them to pop, and I read that a gloss paper pops the best, but this clashes with what I read about gloss being more suited to photos.
I thought of getting rid of the smaller printer after getting the larger one, but love having the flexibility of both. When I have large runs of 8x10s, I use both. I've had jobs of over 300 8x10s running through both printers.
If I could do this well I think I would get a printer with a cassette for sure. I'm assuming that for a large run of 8 x 10s that it is fed automatically from the casette and that when using the 9900 you would have to still hand feed it right?
If you're talking about the Canon iPF printers, no, the maintenance sadly doesn't use enough ink to avoid clogging, vacuum, and the dreaded cleaning cycles. At least 1 8x10 per week is need for that.
It would be just too easy if the maintenance looked after the nozzles 100%, but 1 8x10 per week is no sweat, can't you print out one of your images and just store it and hopefully someone might order it. Sounds like the HP has the edge in ultimate efficiency.
-
I know it's hard to reverse direction once you're heading down the road to wide format printers, but I'll throw this in...
You could probably get one of the talented forum members here to print the occasional 24-44 inch wide print for a reasonable cost. If so, you could consider what I think would be the dream setup for someone who wants to occasionally make large-ish prints, with no maintenance or clog issues.
Buy two 3880s ($1,858 w/free shipping from B&H) and use one for pk ink only, the other for mk. Print, turn them off and forget about them for weeks or months with no problems. Mine is going on 4-years old with no head clogs at all still using a few of the original carts that came with the printer. With 2 printers the included ink would last you for years with no waste from changing black inks. The 3880 is a very manageable size, and 2 of them would easily fit in most home offices.
I was tempted by the 24-inch printer lust last fall but realized I would only really need to make 24-inch wide prints a handful of times per year. In fact, I've been making 17x30 prints ( a fun aspect ratio, wide but not pano) and found that with a generous size matt the size is already too big for most buyer's walls.
Something to think about if you just want to print on your own schedule and not worry about nozzle checks, head cleanings, expired inks, etc.
Sal
-
An alternative to the 17" Epson 3880 is the Canon iPF5100, which has powered roll, cassette (letter size to 17x22, not requiring unloading roll), and top single sheet feeds (must unload roll). Also has full time lossless photo and matte black auto-switching and vacuum transport, which the 3880 lacks. My experience with the older iPF5000 - five years and several thousand square ft. printed before head failures, and current 5100 for two years, 1500 sq. ft. and no head clogging problems at all, with no printing for weeks at times - printer left on to do it's own self-maintenance.
Whatever you choose, I'd suggest not starting with the 8300 beast, but learning the craft with a smaller printer while you see how your client base develops and what their needs are. Printers such as Costo are doing a creditable of job with larger prints now at a very reasonable cost - $10 for a 20x30 on a satin paper, my son says, for the fractal computer art prints he sells.
PB
-
Just buy one. Don't get trapped.
I recommend an Epson 4900 despite my current clogging woes. It has both a sheet feeder and a roll paper feeder and neither has to be unloaded before using the other. It is parsimonious with ink, prints to the edge and I have found it is more economical with roll paper. It can also run its own nozzle checks so it will not burn through paper.
If there is a secret it is that you should never ever run it on High Speed.
Prints
-
Just buy one. Don't get trapped.
I recommend an Epson 4900 despite my current clogging woes. It has both a sheet feeder and a roll paper feeder and neither has to be unloaded before using the other. It is parsimonious with ink, prints to the edge and I have found it is more economical with roll paper. It can also run its own nozzle checks so it will not burn through paper.
If there is a secret it is that you should never ever run it on High Speed.
Prints
Unfortunately, recalcitrant clogging of X900 heads - particularly in the 4900 (probably more of them sold than larger models) - seems to be a systemic rather than isolated problem, with many unhappy owners, and no response from Epson. Here's aninteresting link to Inkjet Mall's take on the problem, which they blame on the OEM Ultrachrome inks.
Disclaimer: I haven't used their products and don't own an Epson X900 printer.
http://www.inkjetmall.com/wordpress/maintenance/epson-oem-inks-versus-epson-4900-print-heads/
PB
-
I've had my 4900 for two years now and rarely have a clogging issue. It sits idle for days (although usually not weeks) and fires up, does a clean cycle and is ready to go. I think a lot has to do with the environment it's in. I'm usually hovering around 45% humidity - sometimes up to 50ish, but not often below 38 except in the dead of winter. Still very few problems, if any.
My 9900, about 8 months old now, has also worked flawlessly over the summer while the humidity ranges from 42 to 50%. I try to keep at least a print going through every few days, but often have long runs of printing to keep it happy.
I'm very satisfied with performance of both these printers.
-
If there is a secret it is that you should never ever run it on High Speed.
Could you explain why?
-
I have several printers in my studio from A3+ to 44"
Just got EPSON 9800 44"
Have HP DJ Z3100 GP PS 24”
HP Pro B 9180
HP Photosmart 8850
All pigment printers
Also dye printers
HP Photosmart 8550
HP Photosmart 8750
I use Z3100 most of the time, perfect machine but is not practical for small sheet prints. As I do a lot of fashion photography for models books I need A4 prints for which I mostly use Pro B 9180 it saves a lot of time on de-rolling prints and cutting them to a size. I also use that printer for everything in small formats, like promotion postcards and small promotion prints. Also for double side printing for books.
It just depend on your work I suppose. Regarding dye printers, I use them only occasionally when I have to print something that need strong colors and will be protected in use from moisture, like albums with sleeves. I have them because I still have ink and paper for them. Once when I spend all the ink and papers I will trash them, as prints are more expensive than pigment prints.
Anyway small printers are more expensive to run than big ones regarding the ink price, therefore I use refilling cartridges for 9180 and 8850 in which I reload genuine HP Vivera ink from bigger HP carts.
There is one more reason for me to have small printers, there are a lot of scrap papers left from big printer, also there is always some ink left in carts of big printer around 7 ml. Therefore I use it for small printers and I actually have free paper and ink for them to do some testing, promo prints even prints for model books.
Damir
-
that's very interesting. I keep having this internal back and forward between just a big printer or adding a small one. There are good arguments for both. One lets me focus, save cash in upfront costs, and time in learning and setting up. Two provides enticing flexibility in being able to run out very small prints straight off cut sheets with no trimming afterwards. Am I right in assuming that small prints can be layed out onto a roll and then trimmed after, but this requires decurl and trimming, as you say. Plus with what you have just said the refilling cartridges taking the cheaper ink from bigger carts, which sounds great!
I suppose it's not a big deal anyway, even without the ink price advantage, if the overall convenience of the desktop printer for small prints overrides the costlier inks in small carts I could simply factor this into my print prices by increasing them, but its still worth considering. It's an economic game when in it for actual business reasons and every factor contributes. On this topic I wonder too if that limiting the minimum print size to sell to something not too small (around A4) results in better revenue because do some buyers tend to go for the smallest print size on offer. Even if some more research results in my smallest print being A4, then you mention about promotional items and the small format would be valuable here.
I was actually looking into the Canon Pro-100 (a dye printer) and it's use with the swellable papers which hold and protect the dye and enable it to be quite resistant to fading although not to the level of pigment. My thoughts had been to possibly use this for the small version printer and run off snappy and vibrant prints because the vector artwork I have is colorful in nature, solid areas of bright color and sharp edges. In practice however I'm still evaluating though because I think pigments have more subtlely which may make the edges of colored areas more definite and tangible. The only way I can tell if dye vibrancy would trump pigment nuancy would only be if I get into actual testing it and getting samples of my specific work. But dyes somehow appeal, and I will be staying with the pigment printer for my large format, most likely the Canon 8400 is favourite at the moment.
From looking around (I searched 'Pro-100' in this forum for example) it seems that the dye printers aren't a favourite of printmakers and pigments are king. My search turned up only a handful of pages on the Canon dye printer. Also I thought dyes were cheaper inks than pigments? I would want my buyers to display their prints and unless they tip water onto the dye print hopefully it would still be suitable.
-
In my case, and I suppose in many other cases, small printers have fewer inks than big one, for example my Z use 12 inks or 11 if you don’t count gloss enhancer, but Pro B use only 8 inks. Print quality is much better. Learning time is not problem as usually printers from same company have same operating logic.
Dye prints on swellable papers are extremely sensitive to manipulation, even if you catch it with your finger moisture from fingers can ruin it. I am rarely selling prints as fine art, market here in Croatia is extremely limited for prints, but I am printing a lot for exhibitions and promotion, like invitations, high quality promotional flyer, promotional postcards and similar. For that always use small printers. It is easier, especially when you have larger quantities,