Printer suggestion to learn the craft?

[peerke]

Hi,

I am considering to step up my printing skills. So far I have been fiddling around on a Canon A4 dye ink all-in-one device. Within the limits of such a device I have learned some basic stuff and how to create my own profiles with a Datacolor Spyder and I experimented with some 3rd party papers (as far as such a device can handle that). Now that I have gotten pretty confident with my photos at the A4 level and standard paper, I would like to find out if my photos also hold up at bigger sizes. Question is what would be a good step to increase my printing (and photography) skills: make a small step first with something like an Epson R1400 or a similar Canon, learn to handle that size (both from a photography and printing perspective), and from there on step up to an A2 size printer like a 3800/3880 or a (second hand) 4800 or something in that range? Or go straight for an A2 printer with the risk of spending a considerable amount and maybe not getting it under control? Or am I being overcautious?

I like to experiment and learn how to print properly and all this is still a hobby, so a printing equivalent of a Stradivarius is certainly not in my scope. But apart from that any suggestion is welcome.

And another thing is that B&W (printing) is also not on my list (yet).

Any tips, suggestions for a proper learning path?

Thanks
Tom

[Mark D Segal]

Buy the Reichmann-Schewe Camera to Print tutorial on this website (or if its not too far off, the forthcoming update) and learn about it before even thinking of equipment.

[peerke]

Hi Mark,

Fortunately I got passed that already, actually I bought the tutorial straight away back in 2007 and never regretted it! I even managed to get (a second hand) copy of 'Real World Color Management: Industrial-Strength Production Techniques' and 'Fine Art Printing for Photographers: Exhibition Quality Prints with Inkjet Printers' to get some theoretical background knowledge. But now I am feeling ready to bring that into practice.

Tom

[John R Smith]

Tom

All the printers are so good nowadays that as long as you have your profiles in place for screen and paper you will get a great result straight out of the box. Fine-tuning things will take a while, of course, but really there is no way you are going to get junk or unusable prints, especially if you do as I do and print a small one first just to check how it really looks  

In the wet darkroom none of this was true, and getting a really good print took a long time even with plenty of experience under your belt.

The other consideration which you might like to ponder is how big do you need to print? An A2 print is around 16x20 ins. When you put that in a frame it takes up a lot of wall space. More wall space than I have in my cottage. And how many exhibitions are you going to be putting on, in reality? If you don't frame those big prints, how are you going to store them - you're going to need some big portfolios, or custom storage draw cabinets. I find that A3+ is quite big enough for me, and even that still presents storage problems. I know, of course, that our friends in the US of A have huge houses and everything just has to be big, not European petite . . .

John

[Jeremy Roussak]

I would suggest you skip the next step and go straight to a 3800 or better or whatever the Canon equivalents are.

Sharon

I agree. Go for an Epson 3880. Inexpensive, superb quality, doesn't (in my experience) clog even if left unused for weeks at a time. The drawbacks are that it doesn't handle rolls or canvas.

Jeremy

[graeme]

I'm still using a little dye based Canon printer as well. I've been considering a more serious printer for years but have never quite gone for one for various reasons. If I did go for one it would be the Epson 3880 on the basis of ink costs, build quality and knowledge base ( Eric Chan's website and the various knowledgable 3880 users on this forum. It would still be my choice if I never printed above A3.

Graeme

[John R Smith]

Well, the build quality on the 3880 is not that marvellous. Certainly nowhere near as good as the pro-level 4000 series just one step up. But I do agree with you on the question of running costs - the 3880 is a clear winner over the A3+ printers.

John

[Mark D Segal]

Well, the build quality on the 3880 is not that marvellous. Certainly nowhere near as good as the pro-level 4000 series just one step up. But I do agree with you on the question of running costs - the 3880 is a clear winner over the A3+ printers.

John

I used my 3800 for three years and made quite a few prints with it over that time period. It held up fine. It may not LOOK all that robust, but as long as the moving parts inside are robust enough to keep-on working correctly, one needn't worry, and at least in my case, that seemed fine. I think the 3880 is essentially the same physically, with newer inkset, firmware and dithering/screening technology.

[AFairley]

But the build quality on the 3800/3880 smacks down the consumer dye printers, and for a hobbyist should last a lifetime.  A refurb 3800 (if you can find one) for $900 or so nets out to around $400 for the hardware, given the $500 or so of ink that ships with it, plus it still carries the full one-year Epson warranty. 

[peerke]

The other consideration which you might like to ponder is how big do you need to print? An A2 print is around 16x20 ins. When you put that in a frame it takes up a lot of wall space. More wall space than I have in my cottage. And how many exhibitions are you going to be putting on, in reality? If you don't frame those big prints, how are you going to store them - you're going to need some big portfolios, or custom storage draw cabinets. I find that A3+ is quite big enough for me, and even that still presents storage problems. I know, of course, that our friends in the US of A have huge houses and everything just has to be big, not European petite . . .

John

Storage is certainly a point I had not considered before, good point! As for size, my wife has paintings from her father with sizes around 1x2 meters (3x6 feet, or 40x80 inches for the US readers) hanging all over the place, so an A2 size photo is still quite petite next to that. The current A4 pictures are like stamps...

I have found a couple of used 3800s at reasonable prices, between 600 and 800 euros ($840-$1120), depending on the amount of ink included. Should check the date on the cartridges I guess before I get such an oldy?

Build quality could be an issue, but I don't think my printing volume would put that big a strain on the printer. The 4x00 cartridges being too big and not being used frequently enough could be another thing to take into account?

Thanks again all, it's been really helpful so far.

Tom

[peerke]

But the build quality on the 3800/3880 smacks down the consumer dye printers, and for a hobbyist should last a lifetime.  A refurb 3800 (if you can find one) for $900 or so nets out to around $400 for the hardware, given the $500 or so of ink that ships with it, plus it still carries the full one-year Epson warranty. 

I have not been able to find refurbished Epson printers in Europe. Does Epson have such program here?

[John R Smith]

Storage is certainly a point I had not considered before, good point! As for size, my wife has paintings from her father with sizes around 1x2 meters (3x6 feet, or 40x80 inches for the US readers) hanging all over the place, so an A2 size photo is still quite petite next to that. The current A4 pictures are like stamps...

Your house is obviously a lot bigger than mine . . . Actually, for learning the craft of inkjet printing, small prints are as useful as large ones. The printer does all the work of making it bigger, whereas in the darkroom printing a biggy takes a lot of extra skill.

I didn't mean to upset anyone with my remarks on build quality, I know the 3800 is a firm favourite around here, but to suggest it should last a hobbyist a lifetime is just ludicrous. They are intended to last five years, and with care and low usage you might get ten. You certainly wouldn't buy one at age 25 and expect to be still using it when you retire. If you said to me that the build quality on my R2400 was pretty cheap and nasty in places I would agree with you, but it does the job very well. Basically, all these printers are as good as they need to be, but your "Stradivarius" of printers does not really exist - well, certainly not at hobbyist A3 or A2 sizes, anyhow.

John

[Mark D Segal]

They are intended to last five years, and with care and low usage you might get ten. You certainly wouldn't buy one at age 25 and expect to be still using it when you retire.

John

Who ever told you they are intended to last five years? And who told you with care and low usage you might get ten? And who would ever THINK of buying one of these things to last a lifetime? For the most-part, the technology and peoples' needs/wants change much faster than these machines would physically wear out.

[peerke]

Your house is obviously a lot bigger than mine . . . Actually, for learning the craft of inkjet printing, small prints are as useful as large ones. The printer does all the work of making it bigger, whereas in the darkroom printing a biggy takes a lot of extra skill.

I must admit there is still some room left between the paintings   It is not just the printing skills I am after: at A4 (or 10x15cm) you can make almost every picture look sharp. So getting to larger sizes also puts different requirements on your picture taking skills. And sharp on screen is different from sharp in print.

I didn't mean to upset anyone with my remarks on build quality, I know the 3800 is a firm favourite around here, but to suggest it should last a hobbyist a lifetime is just ludicrous. They are intended to last five years, and with care and low usage you might get ten. You certainly wouldn't buy one at age 25 and expect to be still using it when you retire. If you said to me that the build quality on my R2400 was pretty cheap and nasty in places I would agree with you, but it does the job very well. Basically, all these printers are as good as they need to be, but your "Stradivarius" of printers does not really exist - well, certainly not at hobbyist A3 or A2 sizes, anyhow.

John

I guess that both a Stradivarius and a $100 violin both make the same sound when hit by a hammer   So by mentioning Stradivarius I was not referring to the build quality, but to the fact that having such a violin does not guarantee a good sound, you still need to be a great player to get the best out of it.

Tom

[peerke]

Who ever told you they are intended to last five years? And who told you with care and low usage you might get ten? And who would ever THINK of buying one of these things to last a lifetime? For the most-part, the technology and peoples' needs/wants change much faster than these machines would physically wear out.

Apart from the printer's lifetime, does Epson have a policy on manufacturing cartridges for obsolete models?

Tom

[John R Smith]

Who ever told you they are intended to last five years? And who told you with care and low usage you might get ten?

The nice man from Epson UK, on the telephone last year. We were talking about the hobbyist machines, like the 2400.

It is not just the printing skills I am after: at A4 (or 10x15cm) you can make almost every picture look sharp. So getting to larger sizes also puts different requirements on your picture taking skills. And sharp on screen is different from sharp in print.

Yes, well now you are talking about the software you use to feed the printer, rather than the printer itself. And all the techniques of editing and re-sampling an image to suit a specific output size.

John

[John R Smith]

Apart from the printer's lifetime, does Epson have a policy on manufacturing cartridges for obsolete models?

Not sure about policy, but I can't see carts listed for the 2100 and 2200 any more on our UK site (I'm ready to be corrected on this). This is horses for courses, obviously - most photo printers have a very easy life. In our office, I used to put in top of the line HP laserjets, and they would be uneconomic to repair within 3-4 years, sometimes less. This is with 40 people pumping stuff through them 5 days a week, and numerous service downtimes along the way. It was always the paper feed paths that got totally knackered.

John

[peerke]

Yes, well now you are talking about the software you use to feed the printer, rather than the printer itself. And all the techniques of editing and re-sampling an image to suit a specific output size.

John

That's what I put in my original posting: it's not just printing but photography skills as well and everything in between. So I don't think I can agree totally with your original remark:

Actually, for learning the craft of inkjet printing, small prints are as useful as large ones. The printer does all the work of making it bigger, whereas in the darkroom printing a biggy takes a lot of extra skill.

John

So unless anyone has any other suggestions, I am going to chase a 3800. I don't think Epson in Europe has refurbished equipment, but there seems to be some 2nd hand devices on the market as well.

Thank you all again, it's been very instructive.

Tom

[Mark D Segal]

The nice man from Epson UK, on the telephone last year. We were talking about the hobbyist machines, like the 2400.

John

Well, unless there was a square-footage dimension to that conversation, the nice man from Epson was talking through his hat - you can't discuss this in terms of years - it's throughput that uses a machine, not time.

[John R Smith]

Well, unless there was a square-footage dimension to that conversation, the nice man from Epson was talking through his hat - you can't discuss this in terms of years - it's throughput that uses a machine, not time.

Mark, of course you are absolutely correct. Which is the point I was trying to make in my comment about the office laserjets. I was simply reporting what seemed to be Epson's view of its printers "normal" usage lifetime in a hobbyist context. You have to remember that this is also limited on the smaller printers because there is no "maintenance" tank, just absorptive pads for the waste ink buried in the base of the machine. At some point, based on nozzle shots, cleaning cycles and cart changes, the printer decides that the pads must be full and refuses to work at all. When you find out the cost of replacing the pads from Epson, you might well decide that it is more economic to purchase a new printer   Unfortunately the new R3000 also has this in-built problem, despite being a step-change in other respects. Square-footage is also not very helpful unless we further define it as text, mixed text and graphics, or photographs. Printing mostly photos does not hammer the paper feed too much, but it does use up print heads and waste pads.

John