Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Printers > Photo Inkjet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 23, 2005, 10:44 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

I've been asked recently to make different sized prints of some of my photos. I've also wanted to frame some, so I tried with my Lexmark. The results were o.k., but not really acceptable. The largest I can go is 8X10. Matted, framed to 14X11. I would like to go somewhat larger, not poster size, but somewhere in between. I would also like good quality. I've been reading in the printer forums, but I'm not ready to wade through a mass of technical data just now, so any help will be appreciated.
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 24, 2005, 7:30 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
hgernhardtjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 516
Default

I have and use the Canon i9900 ... it is outstanding and prints up to 13x19 inches. It has 8 "tanks" of ink that sit in a cradle/head that has the jets. While expensive, the head is easily replacable if it ever comes to that. Ink is easily available, but you may have to go to Office Depot (for example)for a couple of the colors lik the Photo Cyan, Photo Magenta, and Green.

The newly released Hewlett Packard 8750 is also large format and produces equally outstanding prints. Since HP ink is readily available almost everywhere, I can easily recommend this printer, also.
hgernhardtjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 10:30 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I have a canon as well (as do my father and brother-in-law) and they are great. One annoying fact though is the ink dries up on it's own. So if you have all tanks full and start printing you may be able to print 120 prints (4x6) but say you only print a few - and then don't print something for several months - you'll find your cartridges are a little dried up. It's been an annoying fact since ink is so expensive (I do majority of my printing via on-line vendors and only print at home when I need something quick or just have a handful). Just something to be aware of: if you don't use the printer much you won't get the same # of prints per cartridge refill as you will if you use the printer more often). At least my families experience with 3 different Canon models (all 6 or 8 tank models).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 10:39 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

Gracias, I thought these were the top contenders, but my brain is still aching from my camera choice a few years back and I didn't want to go through a lengthy process. I'm still a little scared of making prints for others, but I suppose I must wade into those waters someday.
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 11:57 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I have a Canon S9000 for wide format photo printing and an iP4000 for general purpose printing. The reason I haven't upgraded the S9000 is that it can be jerry-rigged to print wider than 24 inches by dual booting to Win98SE. They "fixed" the glitch where you can print banners at photo quality to get nice panoramas in newer models. A Canon exec that stopped by the Canon booth at a trade show said that Canon could write firmware in 15 minutes to allow it to print panoramas, but would not do so until they made panorama paper. I don't use Canon paper because I want my panoramas on the same paper I am familiar with for other prints, so Canon's reasons are partially justified.

The other reason I have stuck with Canons is that they are so easy to refill. Epson complicates the problem with a chip in the tanks that stop them from printing when they calculate they are almost empty. Canons measure the ink in the tank directly.

My next wide format printer will be the Epson R1800 or its successor. Epson has caught up in both speed and quality with their ultra-chrome pigmented inks. The prints last much longer hanging on the wall and you can print panoramas up to 44 inches. I will either buy aftermarket ink tanks with chips that fool the printer or go to a continuous inking system so I can refill. But I will keep a set of Epson tanks for prints that will go on the wall – especially those I will give to others and not be able to print a new one when they fade over time.

If you don't intend refilling I see no reason to go with Canon rather than the R1800.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 1:30 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

I use the HP PSC 1315, which I bought for $80.

It photocopies, scans, and prints nice photos on HP paper.

It doesn't fax, but I have an old fax unit for that.

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 3:58 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I have an Epson 4000, which is a great but expensive printer.
There are various advantages for going with Epson (along with some downsides.)

The ink quality in the ultracrom inks is great. Lasts a really long time (one of the few vendors that actually lists an estimated archival lenght) and looks good. Some don't like the contrast, saying they are a bit flat. I don't find this to be a problem but everyone has their own standards... and it looks flat to them.

Epson sells loads of different types of papers. They are all good quality papers and they give you profiles for those papers for your printers. You can get cheaper papers, but you can spend more, too. On the higher end printers, the profiles are very good (I know many shooting pros who don't get their own profiles made any more, the Epson ones are good enough for them.)

So many Epson printers have sold that there is good support for them with third-part paper and ink sellers.

The only real downside I can give is that Epson printers have a history of head-clogging. They solved this problem by doing an automatic head cleaning every now and then. That means that if you don't print that often it uses some ink to clean the heads... and you "waste" more inks in the ratio of ink used to print vs. ink used to clean. This bugs me some, but when I see the quality output I start to forget about this.

In my case, the 4000 is a beast of a printer. Really big and heavy. But wonderful output!

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 5:29 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

I read an article about various paper manufacturers claims regarding the longetivity of their inks and papers.

The fact that struck me the most was that no vendor could actually prove the color fastness and longetivity of their papers.

Also, the colorfastness being stated is generally based on the photo being under glass, subject to a low level of light at "x" hours per day. Your results may vary.

The other day my fiance brought home a negative of a photo etched in glass from the early 1920's, I think.

Other than the breakage factor, I wonder how long that image would last?

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 6:46 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

[img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Daniel%20Bolton/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/2005_1009Glass/Glass1/green%20glass/2005_1009Glass0020.JPG[/img]

This is one of the photos that I framed from shots of artglass recently. At 11x14 with matting, and an antiquedbrown frame it turned out well. Very abstract. I think it would do well at 13x19 bumping the frame size up to a good sized wall mount.

I am now mulling over how many prints willI makefor A.) a short enough time span to not dry up dyes, orconstantly re-fill them B.) a $500 machinewith cartriges costing??? C.) a possible character flaw that makes me think others want to look at my prints daily( although I do have a good track record getting photos re-produced in our company calendar).

AmI getting in over my head with this printer talk, will I save in the long run from having a photo lab print for me, and is this the next logical step in amatuer photography wanting to have a permanent display of my photography?


Attached Images
 
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2005, 7:26 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

Thats a pretty high end photo.

I think you should step up to the best printing you can find!

Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:33 PM.