Need a new photo printer

Paul Furman wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> Roger N. Clark wrote:
>>
>>> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
>>> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
>>> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
>>> comment.
>>
>> My place has high levels of dust (and fairly nasty dust at that:
>> downtown Tokyo isn't the worst major city in the world for air
>> quality, but it ain't suburban Colorado
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>
> Denver has pretty serious pollution.
>

We live on an island in the middle of the ocean in a very small town,
and yet we have huge air pollution, about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
are put into the air every day. This is pretty hard stuff on
electronics, and well just about everything else.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

" Denver sits in a bowl,
and in the winter during a temperature
inversion, the pollution is
compressed into the bottom of the bowl."

true...if you drive 10 miles north on i25...it is 100
mile vis.....go into the bowl, on a bad day..and
its very poor vis...fly over it @ 2,500 feet, or so...and
it is a brown blanket of air..sittin' on the city....







On Oct 20, 8:48 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern....DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> >>> Roger N. Clark wrote:
>
> >>>> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
> >>>> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
> >>>> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
> >>>> comment.
>
> >>> My place has high levels of dust (and fairly nasty dust at that:
> >>> downtown Tokyo isn't the worst major city in the world for air
> >>> quality, but it ain't suburban Colorado
>
> >>> David J. Littleboy
> >>> Tokyo, Japan
>
> >> Denver has pretty serious pollution.
>
> Technically, yes, but in reality it's not much. Denver sits in a bowl,
> and in the winter during a temperature inversion, the pollution is
> compressed into the bottom of the bowl. I live about 12 miles west of
> downtown, 800 feet higher and air quality in this area has never
> gone below "good." Sometimes I look downtown and the pollution
> is so compressed, the tall buildings stick out above it and it
> looks like a ground fog in the central city. So if you don't
> live downtown, its not much of a problem, especially compared
> to other big cities.
>
> > We live on an island in the middle of the ocean in a very small town,
> > and yet we have huge air pollution, about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
> > are put into the air every day. This is pretty hard stuff on
> > electronics, and well just about everything else.
>
> I found the salt spray from the ocean to be a major problem
> when I lived in Hawaii. It rusted a lot of stuff, even the
> rings in 3-ring binders that contained my college notes, and
> photo albums.
>
> How about back to printers?
>
> Roger- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

Scott W wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>> Roger N. Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
>>>> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
>>>> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
>>>> comment.
>>>
>>> My place has high levels of dust (and fairly nasty dust at that:
>>> downtown Tokyo isn't the worst major city in the world for air
>>> quality, but it ain't suburban Colorado
>>>
>>> David J. Littleboy
>>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>> Denver has pretty serious pollution.

Technically, yes, but in reality it's not much. Denver sits in a bowl,
and in the winter during a temperature inversion, the pollution is
compressed into the bottom of the bowl. I live about 12 miles west of
downtown, 800 feet higher and air quality in this area has never
gone below "good." Sometimes I look downtown and the pollution
is so compressed, the tall buildings stick out above it and it
looks like a ground fog in the central city. So if you don't
live downtown, its not much of a problem, especially compared
to other big cities.

> We live on an island in the middle of the ocean in a very small town,
> and yet we have huge air pollution, about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
> are put into the air every day. This is pretty hard stuff on
> electronics, and well just about everything else.

I found the salt spray from the ocean to be a major problem
when I lived in Hawaii. It rusted a lot of stuff, even the
rings in 3-ring binders that contained my college notes, and
photo albums.

How about back to printers?

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

How about Epson 2400 versus Epson 3800 versus HP 8750?

I've read reviews on the net, but they all seem to be a couple
of years old. It seems that inkjet technology has plateaued,
as these printers are 2+ years old. Perhaps new better printers
are about to be introduced?

Unfortunately, my current printer won't feed photo paper, so
I really need to replace it soon.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> How about Epson 2400 versus Epson 3800 versus HP 8750?
>
> I've read reviews on the net, but they all seem to be a couple
> of years old. It seems that inkjet technology has plateaued,
> as these printers are 2+ years old. Perhaps new better printers
> are about to be introduced?
>
> Unfortunately, my current printer won't feed photo paper, so
> I really need to replace it soon.
>

I have had very bad luck with HP printers and will not use them again.

I also have found that HP ink fades very fast on generic paper, whereas
Canons seem to last forever on the same paper.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:23:42 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:

> I need a new photo printer for home. I'd like to know
> your experience with newer printers.
>
> I would like to make prints up to 13x19 (ideally 16x20),
> with long life.
>
> Does anyone have experience with the Epson 3800 or 4800 printers?
> Is there something similar at lower cost with maybe a few
> less features?
>
> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
> comment.
>
> I do a variety of prints from 8x10 inches (smallest) to very large,
> 4x5 feet+. I use a pro lab and print using a lightjet
> for the large prints, but I would like to go up to 16x20 inches
> (16x24) with inkjet.
>
> Roger

I've not used those particular models - we adore our Stylus Photo R320.
Generlly, it seems that wide format printers are insanely expensive. I
would suggest you check the Epson online store for a refurb - I've found
good deals there in the past.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

ray wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:23:42 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark) wrote:
>
>> I need a new photo printer for home. I'd like to know
>> your experience with newer printers.
>>
>> I would like to make prints up to 13x19 (ideally 16x20),
>> with long life.
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with the Epson 3800 or 4800 printers?
>> Is there something similar at lower cost with maybe a few
>> less features?
>>
>> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
>> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
>> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
>> comment.
>>
>> I do a variety of prints from 8x10 inches (smallest) to very large,
>> 4x5 feet+. I use a pro lab and print using a lightjet
>> for the large prints, but I would like to go up to 16x20 inches
>> (16x24) with inkjet.
>>
>> Roger
>
> I've not used those particular models - we adore our Stylus Photo R320.
> Generlly, it seems that wide format printers are insanely expensive. I
> would suggest you check the Epson online store for a refurb - I've found
> good deals there in the past.
>

I tend to go along with the idea of an Epson refurb. My wife uses an
Epson. I'm on my third HP foto printer. She has fewer glitches and
time-consuming troubleshooting session than do I.

Avoid a printer with a 'drying fan' -- a fan would circulate the
corrosive atmosphere through the printer. Look for a paper path that
minimizes airflow through the printer. (The older Epsons had a door on
the front that kept the print heads from drying out.) Consider using a
vinyl cover over the printer when it's not in use.

hth ... pete
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

On Oct 20, 8:23 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern... RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
> I need a new photo printer for home. I'd like to know
> your experience with newer printers.
>
> I would like to make prints up to 13x19 (ideally 16x20),
> with long life.
>
> Does anyone have experience with the Epson 3800 or 4800 printers?
> Is there something similar at lower cost with maybe a few
> less features?
>
> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
> comment.
>
> I do a variety of prints from 8x10 inches (smallest) to very large,
> 4x5 feet+. I use a pro lab and print using a lightjet
> for the large prints, but I would like to go up to 16x20 inches
> (16x24) with inkjet.
>
> Roger

I have an epson R800. It's up to A4, but there's an R1800 model which
goes up to 13x18 or so and is otherwise identical (from what I
understand). It's not expensive, but it'll probably cost in inks
(small cartridges, like the R800). The quality of the R800 is lovely,
so from what I read so is the R1800.

Now as for clogging: I also travel a lot, and leave it unused for up
to a month. It clogs after 2-3 weeks of not being used. So far I've
been clearing it by running 1-2 cleaning cycles, but that wastes ink.
>From what I hear, all the epsons are like this.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> How about Epson 2400 versus Epson 3800 versus HP 8750?
>
> I've read reviews on the net, but they all seem to be a couple
> of years old. It seems that inkjet technology has plateaued,
> as these printers are 2+ years old. Perhaps new better printers
> are about to be introduced?
>
> Unfortunately, my current printer won't feed photo paper, so
> I really need to replace it soon.
>
> Roger
Have you checked out Canon? I don't have a large format printer (if
wishes were horses etc), so can't speak directly, but I have a Canon
iP6700 which I like very much. The two newest large format Canons (one
of which uses pigment inks) are getting very good press.
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
> comment.

FWIW, both the Epson R800 and 2400 have been very well behaved here, despite
both abuse and periods of not being used much (respectively). The R800 has
required a couple of trips back to Epson, but it is my work printer and gets
used a lot for plain paper printing, and I don't use the 2400 very much (the
bit about having to change inks is driving me nuts). My place has high
levels of dust (and fairly nasty dust at that: downtown Tokyo isn't the
worst major city in the world for air quality, but it ain't suburban
Colorado (the current mayor is a bit of a crazy, and made attempts at
banning diesel trucks from downtown, but failed, unfortunately)), and Epson
returns the printer each time with a snide note about how they cleaned heavy
dust out of the mechanism. But it's several years out of warrantee and still
printing just fine, other than it's annual cleaning trip, for which they
charge me US$100 or so.

I had much nasty clogging problems with an earlier Epson dye-ink printer.
That was unpleasant, and I hesitated quite a while before buying the R800.

> I do a variety of prints from 8x10 inches (smallest) to very large,
> 4x5 feet+. I use a pro lab and print using a lightjet
> for the large prints, but I would like to go up to 16x20 inches
> (16x24) with inkjet.

I was initially somewhat disappointed with the 2400 (it doesn't have the
gloss optimizer that the R800 does, so glossy prints aren't quite as good as
the R800), but the subtlety of enhanced matte is growing on me.

My take on printers is that I suspect that printers up to 13x19 may be
better than larger ones for prints that you will be inspecting at close
reading distances.

But these things are incredibly obnoxious ink-sucking pigs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote in message
news:2MGdnYLdo4c-CYTanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> I was initially somewhat disappointed with the 2400 (it doesn't have the
> gloss optimizer that the R800 does, so glossy prints aren't quite as good
> as the R800), but the subtlety of enhanced matte is growing on me.
>

I have the Epson R1800 with gloss optimizer used on glossy paper, and I'm
extremely happy with it. Prints on Epson's matte papers, framed behind
glass, are nothing less than superb.

> My take on printers is that I suspect that printers up to 13x19 may be
> better than larger ones for prints that you will be inspecting at close
> reading distances.
>

The R1800 does 13x19" prints. I believe the maximum length is actually 44".

> But these things are incredibly obnoxious ink-sucking pigs.
>

They absolutely are. You have to be prepared to live with high ink costs,
or you'll never use the printer.

SW
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:471982CE.8050403@qwest.net...
>I need a new photo printer for home. I'd like to know
> your experience with newer printers.
>
> I would like to make prints up to 13x19 (ideally 16x20),
> with long life.
>
> Does anyone have experience with the Epson 3800 or 4800 printers?
> Is there something similar at lower cost with maybe a few
> less features?
>
> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
> comment.
>
> I do a variety of prints from 8x10 inches (smallest) to very large,
> 4x5 feet+. I use a pro lab and print using a lightjet
> for the large prints, but I would like to go up to 16x20 inches
> (16x24) with inkjet.
>
> Roger

If you are not using often enough, why get one at all. I didn't use my epson
photo printer but once a month or less. I had to fight the thing to clean
the head every time I used it. I had to remove screws and unplug ribbon
cables to remove the head to clean it. After reassemble and more head
cleaning cycles, I finally got it going.

All this was frustrating and since I didn't print much anyway, I got rid of
it and pay to have prints made somewhere. Some of the online printers may be
a good option too.

Just my experience, John
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:07:19 +0000, JohnR66 wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote in
> message news:471982CE.8050403@qwest.net...
>>I need a new photo printer for home. I'd like to know
>> your experience with newer printers.
>>
>> I would like to make prints up to 13x19 (ideally 16x20),
>> with long life.
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with the Epson 3800 or 4800 printers?
>> Is there something similar at lower cost with maybe a few
>> less features?
>>
>> I often travel and am not using the printer for perhaps a month
>> or more, so I have a concern about heads clogging. If you have
>> experience with leaving your printer for long periods, please
>> comment.
>>
>> I do a variety of prints from 8x10 inches (smallest) to very large,
>> 4x5 feet+. I use a pro lab and print using a lightjet
>> for the large prints, but I would like to go up to 16x20 inches
>> (16x24) with inkjet.
>>
>> Roger
>
> If you are not using often enough, why get one at all. I didn't use my epson
> photo printer but once a month or less. I had to fight the thing to clean
> the head every time I used it. I had to remove screws and unplug ribbon
> cables to remove the head to clean it. After reassemble and more head
> cleaning cycles, I finally got it going.
>
> All this was frustrating and since I didn't print much anyway, I got rid of
> it and pay to have prints made somewhere. Some of the online printers may be
> a good option too.
>
> Just my experience, John

With my Epson Stylus Photo R320 - it does not seem to matter if I don't
use it for several weeks - I've never had a problem requiring a head
cleaning - it just works whenever I turn it on. I appreciate your comments
about costs - I use mine for 1) convenience 2) 8x10 (or 8.5x11) to have
the larger sizes printed commercialy seems to cost inordinately; 4x6 or so
are better printed that way.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer