Need a new photo printer

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> I need a new photo printer for home.

Here is an interesting review of 3 printers:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pigs/page_1.html

I'm leaning toward the HP B9180 based on seeing actual examples,
reviews, print quality and I like the idea of how it manages the
heads when not in use (printer left on) to minimize clogging.
And the inks are rated 200 years (whatever that means in reality).

But I still want to look as Epson 3800 output, which I'll see this
week.

Does anyone have experience with the HP B9180?

It seems that these printers have been out for a while, and Epson
is about to introduce some new technology. I like the idea of
17x22 inch prints from the Epson 3800, but if some great new
technology advance is coming out, the above printers may do me
for a year or so (or at least that's my rationalization because
I need a printer now .

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

ray wrote:

>> If you are not using often enough, why get one at all.

Ray,
I actually considered this. I generally have my large prints
done at a pro lab on a Lightjet with Fuji crystal archive paper.
I need to do a print run of about a 100 13x19-inch photos.
That would cost me over $3000 on a lightjet. Much cheaper
to buy the printer and paper, and then I have the printer
for future work too. Places like Ritz camera would cost
about $2000. So even though I do intermittent printing,
doing it myself means I save money. Plus I can proof
my work and produce better results.

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

Scott W wrote:
> I have had very bad luck with HP printers and will not use them again.

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

This was certainly true in most early ink jet printers, but hasn't
been the case with newer printers.

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

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:30:41 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:
>
> The irritating thing is that I use the R800 for work, which is mostly black
> text on plain paper, and it eats color ink (in the cleaning cycles) even
> when no color gets printed.

For printing text, it'd probably be a good idea to get a cheap laser
printer, as the cost of consumables is much much less than for most any
inkjet.

-dms
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

"Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev.RemoveThis@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnfhl6vr.54s.dmsilev@bardeen.gateway.2wire.net...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:30:41 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The irritating thing is that I use the R800 for work, which is mostly
>> black
>> text on plain paper, and it eats color ink (in the cleaning cycles) even
>> when no color gets printed.
>
> For printing text, it'd probably be a good idea to get a cheap laser
> printer, as the cost of consumables is much much less than for most any
> inkjet.
>

Agreed and that's exactly what I did. I have a Lexmark laser at my shop and
the Epson R1800 at home.

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> 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?

Epson introduces new printers willy-nilly over here. The R800 was called the
PX-G900 over here. There's been a PX-G920 and a PX-G930 since then.

But the R800/R1800 were very very very nice printers. Glossy prints on the
best Epson photo paper (called "Crispia" over here to make native Engish
speakers think of cereal) are wonderful.

But progress must be made, so...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07100401epsonr1900.asp

Interesting: I can't find it on the Epson web site. It's probably this one.
It replaces the blue in the R800/R1800 with orange, claims a resolution of
5760 x 1440. Etc.

http://www.epson.jp/products/colorio/printer_pro/pxg5300/index.htm

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote in message
news:QL2dnWrXSs9qDYfanZ2dnUVZ_vfinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Summer Wind" <SummerWind.TakeThisOut@summer.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Exactly. The B&W snobs claim the 2400 does B&W better, but I can't see a
> difference.
>

I haven't used my R1800 for B&W for that very reason; it's supposed to be
far inferior to the R2400. What paper and settings do you use on your R800
for B&W? Do you scan B&W negatives or do you print digital B&W? Most of
the advice I've seen involves printing color pictures made to look like B&W,
toned either bluish for a cool look or sepia for warm. Do you use that
approach?

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

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:30:41 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
>> The irritating thing is that I use the R800 for work, which is mostly black
>> text on plain paper, and it eats color ink (in the cleaning cycles) even
>> when no color gets printed.
>
> For printing text, it'd probably be a good idea to get a cheap laser
> printer, as the cost of consumables is much much less than for most any
> inkjet.
>
> -dms
That's what I did: I have an HP 1020 sitting next to my Canon iP6700. It
is cheaper, faster and higher quality for b/w text printing.
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

"Summer Wind" <SummerWind RemoveThis @summer.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Exactly. The B&W snobs claim the 2400 does B&W better, but I can't see a
difference.

For the vast majority of even the fussiest of photographers, the 1800 is
simply the right idea.

>> 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.

The irritating thing is that I use the R800 for work, which is mostly black
text on plain paper, and it eats color ink (in the cleaning cycles) even
when no color gets printed.

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

"Summer Wind" <summer-wind.DeleteThis@theworld.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.DeleteThis@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. The B&W snobs claim the 2400 does B&W better, but I can't see a
>> difference.
>
> I haven't used my R1800 for B&W for that very reason; it's supposed to be
> far inferior to the R2400. What paper and settings do you use on your
> R800 for B&W? Do you scan B&W negatives or do you print digital B&W?
> Most of the advice I've seen involves printing color pictures made to look
> like B&W, toned either bluish for a cool look or sepia for warm. Do you
> use that approach?

It may be that the Epson Japanese drivers are better for B&W. Lots of people
complain of funny coloration appearing. I just used enhanced matte and
printed from Qimage. Looked good to me. (I may have selected "Black" in the
advanced printer settings dialog.)

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Summer Wind" <summer-wind.DeleteThis@theworld.net> wrote:
>>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.DeleteThis@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly. The B&W snobs claim the 2400 does B&W better, but I can't see a
>>>difference.
>>
>>I haven't used my R1800 for B&W for that very reason; it's supposed to be
>>far inferior to the R2400. What paper and settings do you use on your
>>R800 for B&W? Do you scan B&W negatives or do you print digital B&W?
>>Most of the advice I've seen involves printing color pictures made to look
>>like B&W, toned either bluish for a cool look or sepia for warm. Do you
>>use that approach?
>
> It may be that the Epson Japanese drivers are better for B&W. Lots of people
> complain of funny coloration appearing. I just used enhanced matte and
> printed from Qimage. Looked good to me. (I may have selected "Black" in the
> advanced printer settings dialog.)

There is no way to print in black only for my US driver... like for
example an email with blue links. I checked the menus pretty carefully
before & didn't find anything that works for that.
 >> Stay informed about: Need a new photo printer 

On Oct 20, 12:23 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


Roger,
Most 17 inch printers are excellent expecially compare to a few years
ago. The Epsons are fine each has a functionality problem, the 3800
only prints up to 37 inches, the 4800 has the black ink change
problem. Switching from photo to matte papers you have to switch photo
and matte black inks, this requires draining the ink lines which can
cost $60-70 for each switch. I'd suggest looking at the Canon iPF5000
or 5100, Canon had some teething problems getting the 5000 out but it
is a solid machine that just keeps printing with very few complaints.
If you are going to be away for any length of time the heads have a
self checking feature so there are no clogs. The down side on the
Canon is that the user documentaion is awful, http://canonipf5000.wikispaces.com/
a site by John Hollenberg gives the low down on the printer , good and
bad. The latest generation of Epsons are better clogwise than in the
past, but they still will clog, the new Epson 4880 should be better
still. Each of these printers will give great prints, life expectancy,
about 100years depending on the paper each has certain limitations but
expect graet prints.

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

I use Epson R2400 allways had Epson once set up I never switch the printer
off that way it never cleans the heads as it would on switching on the only
time it checks the heads is wene I change ink I have not cleaned the heads
in 12 months never had a print go bad
that way my ink lasts a lot longer


"acl" <achilleaslazarides.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1192899198.389443.173510@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 20, 8:23 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
> <usern....DeleteThis@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