Advice (On Photography)

[John Camp]

I'm actually a reasonably decent photographer of things I'm interested in, and I'm reasonably adept at using the basic parameters of photography to get the results that I want (that is, exposure, lighting, focus and the different options in each, and so on.) With, of course, the usual screw-ups, but since I'm not doing it professionally, they don't matter much. I also have good equipment. I've got a couple of questions I'm asking here because the more specifically relevant forums have been overtaken by the widget-twisters, and when I occasionally ask a question, I get what I presume are accurate answers that I don't understand. And I don't plan to do a lot of studying to increase my knowledge, because that seems to be a quicksand that never stops sucking.

Here are some things that I would like to know: I want to buy a decent 17-inch photo printer with a decent B&W capability. So, Canon, Epson or HP? When I mentioned widget-twisters (above,) these are people who are looking for a level of photo refinement far above my ambitions, and so they need a level of expertise far above my grasp. What I want to know is, what printer will give me the least trouble, with prints that are "good enough?" By least trouble, I mean trouble of all kinds. From what I've seen on prices of 17-inch printers on B&H, price is not a problem.

If I'm printing 17x22, and don't often make large crops, would it make any difference whether I'm using a Z6 or Z7 (24.5 vs 45.7mp?)

Is any brand of printer more or less amenable to third-party pigment inks of good quality?



 
 

[PeterAit]

I'm actually a reasonably decent photographer of things I'm interested in, and I'm reasonably adept at using the basic parameters of photography to get the results that I want (that is, exposure, lighting, focus and the different options in each, and so on.) With, of course, the usual screw-ups, but since I'm not doing it professionally, they don't matter much. I also have good equipment. I've got a couple of questions I'm asking here because the more specifically relevant forums have been overtaken by the widget-twisters, and when I occasionally ask a question, I get what I presume are accurate answers that I don't understand. And I don't plan to do a lot of studying to increase my knowledge, because that seems to be a quicksand that never stops sucking.

Here are some things that I would like to know: I want to buy a decent 17-inch photo printer with a decent B&W capability. So, Canon, Epson or HP? When I mentioned widget-twisters (above,) these are people who are looking for a level of photo refinement far above my ambitions, and so they need a level of expertise far above my grasp. What I want to know is, what printer will give me the least trouble, with prints that are "good enough?" By least trouble, I mean trouble of all kinds. From what I've seen on prices of 17-inch printers on B&H, price is not a problem.

If I'm printing 17x22, and don't often make large crops, would it make any difference whether I'm using a Z6 or Z7 (24.5 vs 45.7mp?)

Is any brand of printer more or less amenable to third-party pigment inks of good quality?

Given your stated disinterest in the fine points of printing, what does it matter?

[John Camp]

Given your stated disinterest uninterest in the fine points of printing, what does it matter?

I'm not uninterested in printing, I'm just not interested in devoting a huge part of my life to it. I would like a (relatively) easy-to-use 17 inch printer that I would be willing to spend a few hours setting up, and after that, would hope to get excellent -- not perfect -- prints without too much trouble.

[David Sutton]

I'm out of touch with the the latest models.
The ability to take roll paper saved me a lot of money and time in ways you wouldn't imagine. When I purchased my last printer the Canon ones had fewer clogs; the printer ran a few drops of ink through each day. And having to switch between matte black and photo black on Epson printers was a real pain. The latest Epson SC-P900 is mercifully free from this (a review by Mark D Segal here).
Keith Cooper often has some useful reviews here.
Third party inks are great for printing nerds with deep pockets, otherwise I'd stay clear of them. It doesn't sound like you want to get into the rabbit hole of ink/paper profiling. I learnt it by starting out on a cheap multifunction scanner/printer. Even with 4 or 5 inks the results on 11 inch wide paper were wonderful, but the inks were fugitive.
Otherwise all the three brands you mentioned make fine prints.
May I suggest you are sure you won't want to go 24 inch wide before the purchase?

[John Camp]

Thanks. And thanks for the links.

[kers]

For 22 inch the z6 will be sufficient. I often enlarge my photos to a 150 dpi level and they still look good. You will be a 270dpi at 22 inch and a z6.

About 17 inch printers that do a neutral BW- i don't know. I only know HP with its vivera inks print ever lasting dead neutral BW- i use one.
I would not use third party inks unless i am absolutely sure it will not ruin my photos and/or my printer.
Very much like the fact the colours stay.

[James Clark]

I'm out of touch with the the latest models.
The ability to take roll paper saved me a lot of money and time in ways you wouldn't imagine. When I purchased my last printer the Canon ones had fewer clogs; the printer ran a few drops of ink through each day. And having to switch between matte black and photo black on Epson printers was a real pain. The latest Epson SC-P900 is mercifully free from this (a review by Mark D Segal here).
Keith Cooper often has some useful reviews here.
Third party inks are great for printing nerds with deep pockets, otherwise I'd stay clear of them. It doesn't sound like you want to get into the rabbit hole of ink/paper profiling. I learnt it by starting out on a cheap multifunction scanner/printer. Even with 4 or 5 inks the results on 11 inch wide paper were wonderful, but the inks were fugitive.
Otherwise all the three brands you mentioned make fine prints.
May I suggest you are sure you won't want to go 24 inch wide before the purchase?

I concur with just about everything here - especially the 24" printer suggestion - a 24x36 is far more impactful than a 17x22, and something like a canon ipf2100 isn't appreciably more expensive than a high quality 17" in the grand scheme of things, though the footprint can be a hassle. (I have two printers in-house: Canon ipf4100 (44 inch) and a 13" Pro-10 for smaller prints)

Anyway, to get decent prints for personal enjoyment, I've found the that color matching and brightness have always been my biggest problems, but screen calibration and paper choice can largely mitigate that.  Generally speaking:

1) Glossy/lustre paper is easier to get nice color from that matte papers (though I LOVE matte textured papers - they just require more work to et the print right IMHO)

2) I find printing from Lightroom to be easier than printing from Photoshop or a standalone RIP

3) I've only used Canon, but I've (edit/oops: insert “never had”) issues that have made me want to try other printers.

4) There ARE some bugs in the 4100 software driver that seem to goof up the output if you do a print preview. I don't know why.

[John Camp]

That P900 review by Mark Segal sort of blew my mind. I couldn't swear to it, not having bought a printer yet, but I suspect it's better than the manual. Thanks again, everybody.

[langier]

I'd go with the P900 today, too. The 3880 in my studio is on its final lifeline after ten years and has been rebuilt a few times by my printer expert. In the mean time, he recently replaced the head on my 9900 and it's printing the best it has done in years!

I printed hundreds of large prints from small files with the 9900 including a hotel full of canvas, mostly 30x40 prints and nearly every image from a Nikon D2x, D200, D300 (12 to 10 MP) and even a few from a D100 and D2H (6 to 4 MP). The client loved them all and I still make money from those now ancient and low-megapixel cameras. Part of it is just being able to craft a great image from what you have!

This year I did a 60x40 canvas from an image from the Z 6. It can be done even though some do the math and won't print their files this large. However most of my work isn't sold to photographers who will look at the image daily with a magnifying glass.

If that P900 is as reliable as the 3880 and works as well as the preliminary reviews, that's what I'd get today.

Though I still shoot occasionally with my D800 bodies, it's simply easier to use the Z 6 since I'm doing some motion and in quite situations the Z 6 is noiseless and image quality is at least a generation better than the D800, especially now that much of my work is shot in Hail Mary lighting.

So if this is your passion and can afford to, just do it and start printing up a blast being sure to have fun with it along the way!