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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2003, 4:48 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9
Default i9100 or Dye Sub

The Canon i9100 prints look REALLY good. Has anyone noticed any banding from their i950?

I am having problems making a decision on buying the 9100 or just settling for smaller formats and better quality with a dye sub. How much better is the quality difference between a good dye sub and the i950/i9100 printers?

I mostly print 8x10, but would like ot go bigger for some gallery work. Many of my clients are still scared of my digital camera and scrutinize my prints pretty closley. I don't ever want anyone complaining that my prints look digital. I also would like to use a pretty heavy stock. Can these printers support heavier papers?

My max budget is $1000. Any recomendations? How waterproof are all of these priners. Will a small drop of water ruin a print?

Streve, what is the price per print on the 9100?

thanks all.
satanclaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 18, 2003, 8:15 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506
Default

I"m not steve but....


By the sounds of it you are doing a lot of art gallery printing. I think alot of what you want to do would be archival printing. Which case I would point you to the epson 2200 printer. The inks are pigment based ultrachrome which are very smudge resistent, water resistent, very light resistent and this printer has an incredbile color gamut especially in the range of cyans and for black & whites. Also the archival rating of the 2200 prints are triple that of the cannon i9100 on just about any paper. The price of the printer is 700. More expensive than the cannon one but you get the archival results you are looking for. Also you probably want to invest into some color profile software.

The canon i9100 is actually still using a 4 picoliter drop size like the s9000 did so I don't expect the quality to be much if any different. besides when you look at 13x19 you are not looking that close anyways.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2003, 8:26 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9
Default

i have heard nothing but bad news with the epson. i also saw that it has some banding issues on large areas of skies.

So you are saying that there is really noneed to go with the 91000 compaired to the 9000? What about dye sub. I have not used that process in many years. Dye sub used to be the only way to go.

I will also be using the printer for live event photography.

I heard the archival times on the Epson 2200 is bogous and that they have drastically changed their claims.
satanclaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2003, 3:35 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506
Default

Where in the world did you hear that?????

The epson 2200 has been the hottest selling printer on the market since its introduction last fall for a reason. No store can keep them in stock for more than a few days. The only bad I have heard is that it requires color profiles to fine tune the color matching proccess. That and the light magenta is hard to find every once in a while. Epson has changed not one single claim on its archival abilities since the day it came out. Its been 70 years on glossy and 80 an enchanced matte since it came out. If you can find a press release by epson showing this I'd be greatly suprised. The last time epson had a problem similar to that was back in the 1270 orangeshift days and they bought back the printers. If this was the case on the 2200 I would have heard of a buyback program by now.

I've done prints on it with plenty of blue sky in them with no horizontal banding visibile. Although the one I did it on had gone through a full alignment cycle. The print you saw may have come from a printer that had not been through an alignment cycle.

As for the differences between the i9100 and the s9000. You probably won't see much unless you have very good vision even then you have to be 5-6 inches away from the print to see it.

The most likely improvement with the i9100 will probably be a slightly better ability to hide the dot.

Although with the i950 and its smaller drop size you might be able to see the differences especially if you are of the 20 percent of the population that can see a 3 picoliter drop. But then again you have to be really close to see the differences.

Also as with any printer I still reccomend getting a color profile software to fine tune your color photos. I've talked to photographers who use both. They say with any printer color profile software is a must for producing the best quality results.

Dye sub printers are fantastic and will produce outstanding results at a low price depending on the dye sub you get. The hiti 630ps made by hi touch imaging so far has proved itself as an incredible printer. The only downside with dye sub is that not too many of them provided a coating with the print to enchance its longetivity against the rigors of ultraviolet radiation.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2003, 11:29 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16
Default

with a $1000 budget N2000 is well within your reach

http://www.usa.canon.com/cpr/pdf/Bro...lN10002000.pdf

N2000 office level 2400x1200 B size printer high speed, high capacity
I would get samples from whatever you are considering
I9100 is 4800x1200 with 4picoliter droplet size so there may be a discernable difference

having used at both Canon 900 and Epson 900 series printers I note very little print quality difference between the current models consider which feature sets are a benefit to you
ltrez 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 4:13 AM.