Digital Photo printer question....

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>
> John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Thomas:
> >
> > I agree, except for your brand recommendations. In my opinion, Samsung
> > is the best option, from a price/performance standpoint.
> >
> > Conversely, Brother is probably the worst.
> >
>
> I have had no problems with the brother models using Windows XP. Lexmarks
> have given me some trouble. I have a working HL-1440 and a HL-2040. Trouble
> free. Both cost me less than $100 each.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


Hello, Thomas:

My Samsung ML-6060 is the only laser printer I've ever owned. Never had
a Brother of any kind; my lone Lexmark (an inkjet) was a bona fide pile
of dung, and lasted about as long as a snowball in the Sahara.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>
> John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, man, if I gave you the wrong impression. I'm hardly an authority
> > on laser printers -- or anything else, for that matter. <g>
> >
> > I do know my Samsung ML-6060's toner cartridge has a built-in drum,
> > though.
> >
>
> That makes replacements far more expensive. Lexmark also bundles the drum
> with the toner on its cheaper printers. Brother on the other hand has a
> separate drum and toner, even on its cheapest printers. That make buying
> replacement toner [genuine Brother toner] affordable.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


Hello, Thomas:

In reality, the drum/toner combination cartridge is considered
advantageous. Having to replace a separate drum would be much costlier,
and my combo unit can be inexpensively refilled (with third-party
toner), several times over.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

I was referring to the Canon ProGraf5000 mentioned in the post I was
responding to - this is a pigment ink printer aimed at the professional
market. In my opinion, Canon pigment ink printers are still playing catch
up. It's a different story with dye-based printers.

The S9000 consumer printer has dyes, but the Epson 2200 has older-generation
pigments. On matt paper the 2200 would be a good match for the S9000, but
the Canon will always have the upper hand on glossy paper.

Ian

Digital Photography Now
The online magazine and community for anyone interested in taking digital
pictures!
http://dpnow.com
DPNow forum and users photo gallery: http://forum.dpnow.com
Win an Olympus E-330 Live View DSLR during December:
http://dpnow.com/3241.html



"Skip" <shadowcatcher RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:gn5ah.113845$Ll1.108466@newsfe07.phx...
> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove RemoveThis @this-dpnow.com> wrote in message
> news:dk%9h.20773$Fv1.17599@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> 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
>>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> www.pbase.com/skipm
>
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

And lo, Digital Photography Now <infoplsremove.TakeThisOut@this-dpnow.com> emerged
from the ether and spake thus:
> "Skip" <shadowcatcher.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:gn5ah.113845$Ll1.108466@newsfe07.phx...
>> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove.TakeThisOut@this-dpnow.com> wrote in message
>> news:dk%9h.20773$Fv1.17599@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>> www.pbase.com/skipm
>>
> I was referring to the Canon ProGraf5000 mentioned in the post I was
> responding to - this is a pigment ink printer aimed at the
> professional market. In my opinion, Canon pigment ink printers are
> still playing catch up. It's a different story with dye-based
> printers.
>
> The S9000 consumer printer has dyes, but the Epson 2200 has older-generation
> pigments. On matt paper the 2200 would be a good match for the S9000, but
> the Canon will always have the upper hand on glossy paper.
>
> Ian
>
> Digital Photography Now
> The online magazine and community for anyone interested in taking digital
> pictures!
> http://dpnow.com
> DPNow forum and users photo gallery: http://forum.dpnow.com
> Win an Olympus E-330 Live View DSLR during December:
> http://dpnow.com/3241.html

I own both the S-9000 and the 2200 and I have found the black and
white performance to be much more reliable with the 2200, which I now
use for almost everything. I do photo restoration so I deal with a lot
of sepia photos, which must be the hardest tone to reproduce with
inkjet; they typically come out either too red or too green. In any
case, the 2200 has been a lot more predictable than the S-9000 with
these. And yes, I do have a color-calibrated workflow, before you ask.

I have never found a printer that was able to produce the kind of
depth of blacks on matte paper that I would like in an ideal world,
either, not even using Epson's "matte black" ink.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

"Aaron" <aaron RemoveThis @fisheyegallery.com> wrote in message
news:slrneodcit.hmr.aaron@thebailiwick.com...
> And lo, Digital Photography Now <infoplsremove RemoveThis @this-dpnow.com> emerged
> from the ether and spake thus:
>> "Skip" <shadowcatcher RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:gn5ah.113845$Ll1.108466@newsfe07.phx...
>>> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove RemoveThis @this-dpnow.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:dk%9h.20773$Fv1.17599@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Skip Middleton
>>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>> www.pbase.com/skipm
>>>
>> I was referring to the Canon ProGraf5000 mentioned in the post I was
>> responding to - this is a pigment ink printer aimed at the
>> professional market. In my opinion, Canon pigment ink printers are
>> still playing catch up. It's a different story with dye-based
>> printers.
>>
>> The S9000 consumer printer has dyes, but the Epson 2200 has
>> older-generation
>> pigments. On matt paper the 2200 would be a good match for the S9000, but
>> the Canon will always have the upper hand on glossy paper.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> Digital Photography Now
>> The online magazine and community for anyone interested in taking digital
>> pictures!
>> http://dpnow.com
>> DPNow forum and users photo gallery: http://forum.dpnow.com
>> Win an Olympus E-330 Live View DSLR during December:
>> http://dpnow.com/3241.html
>
> I own both the S-9000 and the 2200 and I have found the black and
> white performance to be much more reliable with the 2200, which I now
> use for almost everything. I do photo restoration so I deal with a lot
> of sepia photos, which must be the hardest tone to reproduce with
> inkjet; they typically come out either too red or too green. In any
> case, the 2200 has been a lot more predictable than the S-9000 with
> these. And yes, I do have a color-calibrated workflow, before you ask.
>
> I have never found a printer that was able to produce the kind of
> depth of blacks on matte paper that I would like in an ideal world,
> either, not even using Epson's "matte black" ink.
>
> --
> Aaron
> http://www.fisheyegallery.com
> http://www.singleservingphoto.com

I can't argue with the B&W, or lack thereof, of the Canon printers, at least
the 9000 and 9900. I'd like to see what the new 5000 does, since it takes a
cue from Epson and uses multiple blacks, IIRC.
The conversation started out, at least, about color reproduction.

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

And lo, Skip <shadowcatcher RemoveThis @cox.net> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
> "Aaron" <aaron RemoveThis @fisheyegallery.com> wrote in message
> news:slrneodcit.hmr.aaron@thebailiwick.com...
>> And lo, Digital Photography Now <infoplsremove RemoveThis @this-dpnow.com> emerged
>> from the ether and spake thus:
>>> "Skip" <shadowcatcher RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gn5ah.113845$Ll1.108466@newsfe07.phx...
>>>> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove RemoveThis @this-dpnow.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:dk%9h.20773$Fv1.17599@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Skip Middleton
>>>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>> www.pbase.com/skipm
>>>>
>>> I was referring to the Canon ProGraf5000 mentioned in the post I was
>>> responding to - this is a pigment ink printer aimed at the
>>> professional market. In my opinion, Canon pigment ink printers are
>>> still playing catch up. It's a different story with dye-based
>>> printers.
>>>
>>> The S9000 consumer printer has dyes, but the Epson 2200 has
>>> older-generation
>>> pigments. On matt paper the 2200 would be a good match for the S9000, but
>>> the Canon will always have the upper hand on glossy paper.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Digital Photography Now
>>> The online magazine and community for anyone interested in taking digital
>>> pictures!
>>> http://dpnow.com
>>> DPNow forum and users photo gallery: http://forum.dpnow.com
>>> Win an Olympus E-330 Live View DSLR during December:
>>> http://dpnow.com/3241.html
>>
>> I own both the S-9000 and the 2200 and I have found the black and
>> white performance to be much more reliable with the 2200, which I now
>> use for almost everything. I do photo restoration so I deal with a lot
>> of sepia photos, which must be the hardest tone to reproduce with
>> inkjet; they typically come out either too red or too green. In any
>> case, the 2200 has been a lot more predictable than the S-9000 with
>> these. And yes, I do have a color-calibrated workflow, before you ask.
>>
>> I have never found a printer that was able to produce the kind of
>> depth of blacks on matte paper that I would like in an ideal world,
>> either, not even using Epson's "matte black" ink.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron
>> http://www.fisheyegallery.com
>> http://www.singleservingphoto.com
>
> I can't argue with the B&W, or lack thereof, of the Canon printers, at least
> the 9000 and 9900. I'd like to see what the new 5000 does, since it takes a
> cue from Epson and uses multiple blacks, IIRC.
> The conversation started out, at least, about color reproduction.

I have definitely found the Stylus Photo 2200 to be *more* reliable in
color reproduction than the S-9000. Here are the pros and cons in my
mind (and some of the reasons my S-9000 is actually sitting on a shelf
collecting dust):

First off, the S-9000 is FAST. Or, if you prefer to see it the other
way, the 2200 is SLOW. I mean, by orders of magnitude, the S-9000
blows the 2200 away for efficiency.

I used the S-9000 exclusively for a bit over a year in my business,
producing archival prints of repaired and restored photos for my
customers, none of whom ever complained about the output. From a
consumer perspective, there doesn't seem to be a noticeable problem
whatsoever. Bear in mind that most of the photos I work with are
either very old sepiatone ones or new, glossy, CVS/Wal*Mart/etc.
developed ones.

The sepiatone output, specifically, is a *lot* more nuanced from the
ESP 2200. Both printers suffer from a red/green color cast when
operating in that range, but the 2200 seems able to minimize it. It
still bothers me, but it has never bothered my customers so I try to
overlook it when I can.

Full-color "snapshot"-type photos are essentially excellent from both
machines, probably because that's the real area of the market they're
targeting. Relativistic color is easier to achieve when you have
*more* colors to work with, and this tends to mask any inaccuracies in
the tones themselves. As a home user with interest in larger-format
output of full-color shots, I would lean toward the S-9000 if only
because the ink is slightly less expensive and the printer is
incredibly fast.

I use a Monaco (now X-Rite) EZColor Optix to calibrate everything; the
scanner, the printers, and the monitor(s). I would recommend that kit.
For about $400 retail, it does a fine job and has drastically
increased the reliability of my color.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Digital Photo printer question.... 

"Aaron" <aaron.RemoveThis@fisheyegallery.com> wrote in message
news:slrneofs61.hmr.aaron@thebailiwick.com...
> And lo, Skip <shadowcatcher.RemoveThis@cox.net> emerged from the ether
> and spake thus:
>> "Aaron" <aaron.RemoveThis@fisheyegallery.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrneodcit.hmr.aaron@thebailiwick.com...
>>> And lo, Digital Photography Now <infoplsremove.RemoveThis@this-dpnow.com> emerged
>>> from the ether and spake thus:
>>>> "Skip" <shadowcatcher.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:gn5ah.113845$Ll1.108466@newsfe07.phx...
>>>>> "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove.RemoveThis@this-dpnow.com> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> news:dk%9h.20773$Fv1.17599@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Skip Middleton
>>>>> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>>> www.pbase.com/skipm
>>>>>
>>>> I was referring to the Canon ProGraf5000 mentioned in the post I was
>>>> responding to - this is a pigment ink printer aimed at the
>>>> professional market. In my opinion, Canon pigment ink printers are
>>>> still playing catch up. It's a different story with dye-based
>>>> printers.
>>>>
>>>> The S9000 consumer printer has dyes, but the Epson 2200 has
>>>> older-generation
>>>> pigments. On matt paper the 2200 would be a good match for the S9000,
>>>> but
>>>> the Canon will always have the upper hand on glossy paper.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> Digital Photography Now
>>>> The online magazine and community for anyone interested in taking
>>>> digital
>>>> pictures!
>>>> http://dpnow.com
>>>> DPNow forum and users photo gallery: http://forum.dpnow.com
>>>> Win an Olympus E-330 Live View DSLR during December:
>>>> http://dpnow.com/3241.html
>>>
>>> I own both the S-9000 and the 2200 and I have found the black and
>>> white performance to be much more reliable with the 2200, which I now
>>> use for almost everything. I do photo restoration so I deal with a lot
>>> of sepia photos, which must be the hardest tone to reproduce with
>>> inkjet; they typically come out either too red or too green. In any
>>> case, the 2200 has been a lot more predictable than the S-9000 with
>>> these. And yes, I do have a color-calibrated workflow, before you ask.
>>>
>>> I have never found a printer that was able to produce the kind of
>>> depth of blacks on matte paper that I would like in an ideal world,
>>> either, not even using Epson's "matte black" ink.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aaron
>>> http://www.fisheyegallery.com
>>> http://www.singleservingphoto.com
>>
>> I can't argue with the B&W, or lack thereof, of the Canon printers, at
>> least
>> the 9000 and 9900. I'd like to see what the new 5000 does, since it
>> takes a
>> cue from Epson and uses multiple blacks, IIRC.
>> The conversation started out, at least, about color reproduction.
>
> I have definitely found the Stylus Photo 2200 to be *more* reliable in
> color reproduction than the S-9000. Here are the pros and cons in my
> mind (and some of the reasons my S-9000 is actually sitting on a shelf
> collecting dust):
>
> First off, the S-9000 is FAST. Or, if you prefer to see it the other
> way, the 2200 is SLOW. I mean, by orders of magnitude, the S-9000
> blows the 2200 away for efficiency.
>
> I used the S-9000 exclusively for a bit over a year in my business,
> producing archival prints of repaired and restored photos for my
> customers, none of whom ever complained about the output. From a
> consumer perspective, there doesn't seem to be a noticeable problem
> whatsoever. Bear in mind that most of the photos I work with are
> either very old sepiatone ones or new, glossy, CVS/Wal*Mart/etc.
> developed ones.
>
> The sepiatone output, specifically, is a *lot* more nuanced from the
> ESP 2200. Both printers suffer from a red/green color cast when
> operating in that range, but the 2200 seems able to minimize it. It
> still bothers me, but it has never bothered my customers so I try to
> overlook it when I can.
>
> Full-color "snapshot"-type photos are essentially excellent from both
> machines, probably because that's the real area of the market they're
> targeting. Relativistic color is easier to achieve when you have
> *more* colors to work with, and this tends to mask any inaccuracies in
> the tones themselves. As a home user with interest in larger-format
> output of full-color shots, I would lean toward the S-9000 if only
> because the ink is slightly less expensive and the printer is
> incredibly fast.
>
> I use a Monaco (now X-Rite) EZColor Optix to calibrate everything; the
> scanner, the printers, and the monitor(s). I would recommend that kit.
> For about $400 retail, it does a fine job and has drastically
> increased the reliability of my color.
>

Well, I can't argue with what you say here, because I don't use it for b&w,
as you say, neither printer is adequate for that job, and the sepia I've
done was from original files, not scanned restored images, so the color
balance was probably different. But I found the color I got from my 9000
was closer to the original than others got on their printers from my files
on their Epson 2200s (2).

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