Digital Photo printer question....

frederick wrote:
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
Typo:
That is 19x13"
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

frederick wrote:
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
Typo:
That is 19x13"
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

frederick wrote:
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
Typo:
That is 19x13"
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

frederick wrote:
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
Typo:
That is 19x13"
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

frederick wrote:
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
Typo:
That is 19x13"
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:21:06 +1300, frederick wrote:

>> Digital Photography Now
>> http://dpnow.com
>>
> \
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.

It is nearer 16" x 11" allowing for border.
--
Neil
'The moving finger writes and having writ still makes the same mistakes'.
swap 'ra' and delete 'l' for email
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

Skip wrote:
> "Hebee Jeebes" <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4568f508$0$34563$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Well, it does for me. Printing the exact same image on both my HP B9180
>> and my Epson R2400 and my Canon i9900 the HP has bare far more image
>> detail. Now you maybe blind or you have the hots for Epson or Canon. I
>> have the hots for the best print quality and that is the HP.
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> "frederick" <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164485900.209970@ftpsrv1...
>>> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
>>>> HP PhotoSmart Pro B9180. It produces prints with more detail than
>>>> anything Epson or Canon has.
>>>>
>>> Incorrect. A nice printer, but it doesn't produce prints with more detail
>>> than anything Epson or Canon does.
>>
> I love guys who feel they have to insult those who disagree with them. Why
> can't people be civil, anymore?
>
Anyone who owns an R2400, a B9180, and an i9900 simultaneously clearly
has a screw loose somewhere, or is telling big porkies - presumably with
some kind of axe to grind.
Anyway, the B9180 doesn't print with more detail but the reality is that
it's fairly irrelevant - all these printers will resolve something like
250- 300 lines per inch with dithering patterns invisible to the naked
eye, and with a colour gamut exceeding any wet colour process.
HP have suffered major teething problems with the B9180, from paper feed
issues, pizza wheel tracks, ink pooling, nozzle blockages with new
heads, and numerous firmware and software glitches.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

Digital Photography Now wrote:
> In my experience Canon is still some way behind Epson and, now, HP in terms
> of metamerism (variation in visible colour balance under different
> lighting).
>
> You probably don't need anything more than an Epson Stylus Photo R2400,
> which can go up to A3+ sheets, or about 12x18 inches and longer with roll
> paper.
>
> Ian
>
> Ian
>
> Digital Photography Now
> http://dpnow.com
>
\
A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
The HP B9180 would be a contender too - even though there have been some
real QC and support issues with HP. IIRC maximum paper length is 44",
no hardware roll paper support.
Above the R2400, there's the R3800 17" printer that doesn't have the
problem of matte/photo black cartridge changes, but IIRC maximum paper
length it will handle is 37". Above that, the large format Epsons won't
do small prints (6x4 etc).
The most interesting (IMO) new printer is the HPZ3100. A 6 head/12
channel 10+ colour printer, same 200 year DPR as the B9180, gloss
optimiser like the R1800 - so no gloss differential / bronzing.
Closed-loop self-calibration (also like the B9180), but this time also
integrated full spectrophotometer for making ICC profiles on any media.
They aren't cheap though, and IIRC are available in 24" and 44" model
sizes only - a little large for my home office.
A problem that HP face is that the ink isn't as "strong" as Epson,
probably a compromise needed to get reasonably trouble-free performance
with pigment ink through thermal head printers. Result is that there
are issues using the HP B9180 (and probably the Z series - as the same
inks are used) on third party papers which don't absorb enough ink
quickly enough, yet were excellent with Epson's pigment printers.
Problems such as pizza cutter wheel marks, banding, bronzing, poor
colour from ink pooling around paper surface texture have been observed.
If the HP printers become popular, then perhaps there will in time be
more support from third-party paper suppliers.
I don't think Canon are a real contender yet. Although Luminous
Landscape has nice things to say about the iPF5000, they seem to act
like a Canon marketing division at times - that is when they aren't
acting as Leica's advertising agency. Other reviewers seem to place it
in the class of Epson's older Ultrachrome printers (not the newer K3 or
Ultrachrome Gloss), but with better colour from neutral black and extra
colours.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:39:37 -0800, "Skip" <shadowcatcher.TakeThisOut@cox.net>
wrote:


>You need to get out more. The new Canons have different inksets to improve
>their performance. My old S9000 Canon whacks the R2200 all hollow on image
>quality, giving way only on archival quality. I've never seen a print from
>a 2400 that beats the newer Canon s9900, so I'd expect the newer ones to do
>even better. And it prints A3+, too.


I can speak from firsthand experience with a Canon S9000,
HP DesignJet 30 and Epson R1800 (owned and used, in
that order, over a period of about four years.)

The Canon had a fine-microbanding issue that was apparently
a design flaw. Print samples from other Canon printers (same
or similar models from that era) had the same problem.
You can see the print samples here:

<http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/Printer-Test/printer-prints.html>

the micro-banding is most evident in this scan of a print:

<http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/Printer-Test/pot_scan2-ca.jpg>


The Canon died after about a year and a half of moderate
use. Some issue with the printhead thermal regulation,
apparently on the main board. Aside from these issues,
a decent (and fast) printer.

The HP wasn't a bad printer, but paper handling was
something awful. You had to use HP papers to get the
advertised print longevity, and that was the clincher for
me -- I sold it on eBay after about a year. The HP had
internal color calibration that never worked (at least not
on HPs own glossy papers.) Here's a link showing a
close-up comparison of printed shadow detail on an
Epson 7600 and an HP DJ-30:

<http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi031/HP_Designjet_30.html>

[In short: much finer dot placement on the Epson.]

The Epson (R1800) is my favorite of this lot, so far.
Resolution is the best I've seen on any inkjet printer.
"Dots" are invisible, without a loupe. Best of all, it
prints on glossy paper with pigment inks. At last!

I'm glad that HP and Canon are giving Epson a good
run for the money. I'm not a big stickler for "brand
loyalty" and I see clever ideas in both the HP and the
Canon printers. You can fault Epson printers in
several areas, but in general their print quality is
second to none.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

Each one has its uses. I like the Canon for quick dirty prints. With third
party ink and paper I can print 4X6's for friends and relatives for about 12
cents per pop. I bought the Epson as my main 13X19, but then liked what I
saw for the HP as well as the larger ink cartridges, having all blacks in at
once and the fact that it wastes a lot less ink just made it an easy buy
especially when it is a better made printer (real paper drawer) for less
money.

If you can't see the difference between the three then you are blind.

R


"frederick" <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote in message
news:1164524901.614665@ftpsrv1...
> Skip wrote:
>> "Hebee Jeebes" <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4568f508$0$34563$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Well, it does for me. Printing the exact same image on both my HP B9180
>>> and my Epson R2400 and my Canon i9900 the HP has bare far more image
>>> detail. Now you maybe blind or you have the hots for Epson or Canon. I
>>> have the hots for the best print quality and that is the HP.
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>>
>>> "frederick" <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1164485900.209970@ftpsrv1...
>>>> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
>>>>> HP PhotoSmart Pro B9180. It produces prints with more detail than
>>>>> anything Epson or Canon has.
>>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. A nice printer, but it doesn't produce prints with more
>>>> detail than anything Epson or Canon does.
>>>
>> I love guys who feel they have to insult those who disagree with them.
>> Why can't people be civil, anymore?
>>
> Anyone who owns an R2400, a B9180, and an i9900 simultaneously clearly has
> a screw loose somewhere, or is telling big porkies - presumably with some
> kind of axe to grind.
> Anyway, the B9180 doesn't print with more detail but the reality is that
> it's fairly irrelevant - all these printers will resolve something like
> 250- 300 lines per inch with dithering patterns invisible to the naked
> eye, and with a colour gamut exceeding any wet colour process.
> HP have suffered major teething problems with the B9180, from paper feed
> issues, pizza wheel tracks, ink pooling, nozzle blockages with new heads,
> and numerous firmware and software glitches.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

Canon imagePRESS(TM) C7000VP digital color press

This machine gives very very impressive results and is
especially good where money is not an issue!

danmullen.TakeThisOut@optonline.net wrote:
> If money was not a question.......
> what photo printer would everybody buy???
> Criteria... up to 11x14 size
> roll paper optional
> Photo to be "for sale" quality.
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

> especially when it is a better made printer (real paper drawer) for less
> money.
>
> If you can't see the difference between the three then you are blind.
>
It's an HP:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=21034715
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=21034928
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=20979986
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=20952023
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=20920054
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=20829999
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

"Hebee Jeebes" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:456a79d9$0$34552$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Each one has its uses. I like the Canon for quick dirty prints. With third
> party ink and paper I can print 4X6's for friends and relatives for about
> 12 cents per pop. I bought the Epson as my main 13X19, but then liked what
> I saw for the HP as well as the larger ink cartridges, having all blacks
> in at once and the fact that it wastes a lot less ink just made it an easy
> buy especially when it is a better made printer (real paper drawer) for
> less money.
>
> If you can't see the difference between the three then you are blind.
>
> R
>
>

So, you use a $500 printer that is capable of excellent 13x19 prints to do
4x6s? That's an economical solution, if I ever heard one...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question....