Printers

[Graeme]

Hi All,

My old Epson R200 printer has just given up the ghost, And I'm in the market place for a new printer maybe A3 does anyone have any recommendations at all ? I have always used Epson but would probably give another manufacturer a chance. I use Macs.

Thanks Graeme

[bert]

hello,

sorry i cant help recommending a replacement printer :-/

i used epson printers over the years, but now i wont have a printer in the house, i upload some of my images to an online printing firm, deciede on what sizes i want, and two days after placing the order, i have the images i wanted, on various sizes of paper, for very little financial outlay. for b+w i produce my own via the darkroom and if i had a color head head on the enlarger i wouldnt need the online printer :)

except of course for digital images, but i very rarely use the digital camera !

[DaCh]

Epson R2400 has worked faultlessly for me. Now the R2880 is available you should be able to find a low mileage (ex amateur) one, cheap. The 2880 is not a huge leap forward, more a refinement so the 2400 is a great option.
But do consider the running costs, it is a top quality printer and you get what you pay for, use the original ink set, choose paper carefully and use the dedicated profiles.
I used Harman Matt FB for my last exhibition and several people were very complimentary about the print quality; “good as conventional prints” etc. Once they are behind glass it can be very difficult to tell.

[Graeme]

Thanks Guys

I have been considering the R2880 and have been researching it, many years ago I had a 1520 (I think that was the number) a fine printer but had to sell it when I moved countries to work. The ink issue seems to be the biggest complaint I see (basically in its cost) I only require B+W and most people seem to sing its praises. Large negatives for alternative process's is another reason for the A3. A few years back I used to print B+W from 5x4 which I used to enjoy but I no longer have the space for a darkroom (and my partner kept moaning about the brown stains everywhere, now we just have cyanotype blue everywhere ??)

Graeme

[pob]

I use an HP printer. A big one. But their intermediate size one is very good too. An alternative to Epson worth considering.
HP Photosmart Pro B9180 (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/18972-18972-3328063-15100-3328076-1143049.html)

[shudaizi]

Graeme,

I just went through this same process a week ago. Ended out getting a used R2400 and am currently getting my feet wet by doing a few tests using the ABW (Epson) drivers and Roy Harrington's Quadtone RIP. Like you I only print b/w and want to do digital negatives (though the learning curve for that appears to be somewhat like scaling the Matterhorn...) and the availability of things like QTR profiles for the Epson printers was what finally tipped the scales for me. The rumors are true though, the R2400 is a thirsty machine!

[ilford_king]

Here are the factors I would seriously consider when looking at printers (I deal with Epson, Canon, and HP large-format printers on a regular basis):

Ink cost - printer manufacturers are really looking at establishing you as a long-term ink user (think of them as the pusher), this is where they make all of their money. Look at what it costs per tank, how much millage each tank gives you, and most importantly can you print both glossy and matte without wasting valuable ink doing an expensive tank swap (the later is only an issue on the 17" and smaller Epsons, their 24" and larger printers now have both blacks finally, Canon and HP printers have always had both blacks). Also, at the last APIS someone had done the math (Eric Nelson I believe) and found that it was actually a better value to buy a 17" Epson versus the 13" due to the amount of ink you get up front, and how much tanks cost versus the volume of the tank. It was something like $400 cheaper to buy the bigger printer based on ink volume in the starter tanks. Also, what is the relative humidity where you live/work? Some ink sets work better in dry climates, some better in humid ones. OUr Epson print heads dry out frequently costing us lots of money in inks to clear them, and heaven forbid we have to do a "power cleaning" that uses about 10% of the tanks volume! Yikes, this is a real run on I know, but I can't stress enough how important the ink is in the equation, you buy the ink not the printer!

Print speed - Epson is the slowest, Canon is the fastest. If you only make a few prints a day this is not an issue. If you are trying to print an entire portfolio in a day this is major.

User support - Epson wins this one hands down, there are just far more users on Epsons than Canon or HP (think PC vs Mac). So with an Epson you have a better chance of finding someone who has similar experiences and can help you solve issues, where as with Canon and HP you are more on your own to troubleshoot these problems. Also, Epson tends to have better documentation for their hardware, Canon's documentation is a joke, HP is acceptable. There are more reliable canned ICC profiles for Epson than the other two as well, but this is rapidly changing as more people are switching to Canon and HP lately.

Repair cost - personally I would want a printer that could last for 5-8 years, not one I plan to throw in the garbage after only 2-3. Canon and HP have lots of user changeable parts, Epson will want you to use a certified tech for even the smallest repairs. One of my students had the ink cart chip go out for one of the colors behind the print head, the part was $15, but after paying the tech to do it he was out over $600. Our print heads on the Epson's at school (4800 and 4880 models) go out every 9-12 months (granted they get very heavy usage).

At the school where I teach we use all Epson's, they have advantages and disadvantages. When I purchased my own printer for home I decided on the Canon Prograf 5000 over Epson for three important reasons: first I live in an arid climate and Canon inks can handle low-humidity far better than Epson (when inks dry out you get nozzle clogs that waste ink to clear out), also the Canon printer can print Matte or Glossy without the need to change out the black ink cart, this was important for me since I like to work with both media simultaneously. And finally the Canon printer has a true 16-bit export module that does borderless banner printing with ease, something the Epson struggles with. HP printers also do great borderless banner prints.

Have I had issues with the Canon? Sure, the main one is that every once in a while one of my ink tank chips goes on the fritz and the printer thinks the tank is empty when it is obviously not (this has happened on two tanks so far, Photo Grey and Photo Magenta, my vendor has had 8 tanks go bad). Fortunately I found a vendor that will exchange these for me so it is an annoying inconvenience, but not a deal breaker. Also, the Canon needs more attention than the Epson when you insert media, it actually makes you tell it what surface and size you are feeding at the printer as well as the print driver, and if you enter one incorrectly you will be spending a few minutes clearing out all the errors to start over. HP's also tend to want more attention than Epson, but not as much as Canon. Otherwise I have been very pleased with the Canon, and it is so much faster than the Epson it's not even funny. I use it for matte and glossy media as well as Pictorico for contact printing, and so far I have been very pleased.

Now if you put an inkjet print from each of the three manufacturers on a table side by side, I seriously doubt you would be able to see any discernible difference from print to print (with the naked eye form an appropriate viewing distance). So all that matters is your user experience on the path to the final print. Epson, Canon, and HP all do a great job at creating the illusion of a continual tone darkroom print, and all three ink sets are archival, water resistant, and fade resistant.

Good luck!!!

[ilford_king]

One other note, I use the PDN system for my digital negatives, and I have found the Canon gives me better UV blocking densities than Epson or HP, however, I sometimes notice noise in my highlight transitions with certain color combinations which is a problem I have not had with Epson or HP.

[pob]

Yes, all true but I wouldn't confuse people into thinking they get the same service for a consumer printer than they get for a professional one. I had on two occasions a technician come to upgrade parts of my printer (HP Photo z2100). This is in France. I don't know if the service is as good all over the planet.

As for ICCs my printer has an integrated spectrometer. Useful, you don't have to go hunting after ICCs. And it keeps the printer calibrated. I don't know how crucial this is, I just let it do it's calibration when it's required.
But for consumer and other pro printers you can either rent of buy a spectrometer if you don't know someone who can lend one to you. The cheapest would be a ColorMunki Design from GretagMcBeth/X-Rite. http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1114


Epson has print heads designed to last the life time of the printer, or at least until it's warranty is over. Apparently from what Ilford_King says this isn't always true depending on the climate.
Canon and HP use replaceable print heads: either part of the cartridge on smaller printers or as a inexpensive separate part with a warranty and a shorter life than with Epson.

[ilford_king]

The school environment is very hard on printers, lots of inexperienced users, lots of media types and thicknesses, and they are being used 7-days a week for 8-14 hours a day. Individual users will take better care of their printers and use it less, so I imagine the heads survive longer under those conditions.

[antbiker]

Graeme - I have the R200 too.
I read some time ago that Epson design into the firmware a print/usage counter & at a specific point, where Epson deem it necessary that the printer should be serviced - it simply stops working. Even if the printer is printing perfectly it will do this. Obviously Epson will demand money for parts & labour to get the machine working again. Is this what has happened to you?

This approach by Epson infuriated me. I searched the web & found a service utility (software) that should allow me to reset the firmware on the printer.
I have not had to do this yet as I am a low volume printer but hopefully I am prepared. Why should I stop using my printer if the results coming out of it are still good?

PM me if you need help with this.

Personally I would seriously consider the wisdom of home printing again. Over the years it has been a complete pain in the backside, the amount of ink & paper wasted has been shocking.
If you can, don't do all your printing in one go. Hold them back & do a couple each week. That should prevent the heads drying up (and hence more wasted ink clearing them).

Since getting my new computer (and LCD monitor) I have been battling bronzing on my prints.

I even tried making my printer a dedicated black & white printer with a set of 6 black inks from somewhere in the USA (can't remember from whom now) but they proclaimed exhibition quality from even a humble inkjet printer.
The prints never looked satisfactory to me on Ilford paper with an 'orange-peel' texture to them where the ink seemed to pool. I should have experimented with different paper but the cost would have been horrendous.

Best of luck to you - you need it!!

[pob]

Tony,
Bronzing has nothing to do with your computer or screen. It's just the inks/pigments on the paper.
This seems to affect different papers to a variable degree. I think RC digital papers are the most prone to this. I haven't tried FB glossy paper yet. In general mat paper is unaffected.

A coat of lacquer or varnish might help. I'm not convinced yet by the varnish I've tried which is for oil and acrylic paint. I've just bought some from Hahnemühle. I'll tell you the results once I've tried it out...

Some makes have cheap user-replaceable heads... Not Epson though...

Since moving to a professional printer, I think I have had rather little hassle than with my old Epson stylus photo 1200, one of the first A3 consumer printers out ten years ago. Whatever this comparison is worth.

[ilford_king]

Bronzing only happens when using the black ink for glossy papers (Photo Black, PK) inks, it is an issue with older ink sets only, any professional pigment ink set released in the last two years won't have it (although cheaper consumer dye sublimation inks still do). Also cheaper papers with less tooth tend to show it more easily than higher quality papers with a better tooth. If bronzing bothers you stick to papers using matte black inks (MK).

Bob,
Have you tried controlling the "color density" in the "paper configuration" menu? Or is that not an option on the pro-sumer printers? If you are getting pooling it is because too much ink is being put down, you can use that setting to reduce the amount of ink being used by +/- 50% It should solve the pooling issue you are having. Remember the ink set you bought is trying to work with the drivers Epson gave you, so there will have to be some user tweaks to get everything to work in harmony (and Epson not only won't help you, they will probably yell at you for using a non-Epson approved product in their printer!). I'm also curious if you have an evaluation print file to do your testing from, it makes life a lot easier when troubleshooting what media type and print settings to use. If not PM me and I will send you the one I use.

I can relate to how frustrating home-printing can be with inkjet, but I compare it to using alternative processes. When everything is working the joy of pulling a great print is unmeasurable, but when the "photo gremlins" conspire against you it makes you want to give up and let someone else do it for you. When my inkjet printer works it is an amazing feat of technology that makes gorgeous prints right in my living room, when it doesn't it is a gigantic (and very heavy) paperweight that stares accusingly at me whenever I'm in the room. Don't take for granted that technology has a personality, talk sweet to it, caress it now and again, and never yell at it (in earshot)!

[antbiker]

I do agree with ilford_king, when a print comes out that is spot on - that is very rewarding.

But I do question your comments Pierre (with respect - as you no doubt know more than me).
I get a picture that looks good on screen, print it off & the shadows are so dense that it looks like the image on the left. I print from Photoshop & set it to 'Photoshop manages colors'.

I have to make it look quite bad on screen, cranking the contrast off & shifting the shadow slider in levels so the density of the shadows is vastly reduced. I then get something acceptable like the right hand image. It is far from an exact science which I don't like.

At this point you will be having 'some words' with me as I admit I haven't calibrated my monitor....... I think I have struggled with it all so much I have just about given up!
I have made a setting in my monitor driver that allows me to turn the brightness & contrast right down to give an indication of the final print. Is this akin to calibrating?
Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/bronzing_1115.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/bronzing_1115.jpg)

[pob]

At this point you will be having 'some words' with me as I admit I haven't calibrated my monitor....... I think I have struggled with it all so much I have just about given up!
I have made a setting in my monitor driver that allows me to turn the brightness & contrast right down to give an indication of the final print. Is this akin to calibrating?


Well this is very important as you point out. You have to calibrate your screen and leave it like that.
It seems the gamma of your screen is set too high. This is why you have such dense dark areas.

You can try and rent or get a lend of an i1, Colourmunki or Spyder spectrometer. It's really worth it. The calibration process will ask you to set the contrast and luminosity and colour balance on the monitor. Then it will display colours in sequence, like a colour chart, and calculate a profile. Then you don't want to change the brightness or contrast or whatever. This is a reference.
Then load the ICM profiles for the paper and printer combination.

You can have trouble with the colour space inside Photoshop if you use something too restrictive. In grayscale a large dot size, or in colour sRGB. Switch to no colour management for grey scale until you are ready to print and then use the colour profile or the paper and printer combination for proofing. For colour switch to Adobe RGB (1998 ).

In my case it's the printer/driver that handles the colour mapping. Not Photoshop, but this is a special case. I suppose you have tried the different rendering modes.

[pob]

Bob,
Have you tried controlling the "color density" in the "paper configuration" menu? Or is that not an option on the pro-sumer printers? If you are getting pooling it is because too much ink is being put down, you can use that setting to reduce the amount of ink being used by +/- 50% It should solve the pooling issue you are having. Remember the ink set you bought is trying to work with the drivers Epson gave you, so there will have to be some user tweaks to get everything to work in harmony (and Epson not only won't help you, they will probably yell at you for using a non-Epson approved product in their printer!). I'm also curious if you have an evaluation print file to do your testing from, it makes life a lot easier when troubleshooting what media type and print settings to use. If not PM me and I will send you the one I use.

Not sure this is for me... The P is for Pierre not Robert. ;)

I have an HP Designjet z2100 24", it's automated for calibration, it prints it's own charts and has a built-in spectrometer. The little bronzing I have is rather marginal. You have to look from the side and it only affects the parts where I have steep gradients from pure white to pure black.
I've had some trouble with some paper types, Fuji Satin set to the wrong paper type and it was the opposite, not enough ink. I have severe banding. Plus a very fragile paper structure that got crushed whenever the printer would stop because the computer was busy with something else. I've finished that roll and I don't think I'll buy anymore of that sort.
I'm more concerned by the difference between the printed and still white areas. The bigger HP z3100 or z3200 have a clear ink with no pigment but which gives a more uniform finish in these parts. But I couldn't afford it. Next time if I start to sell some prints! :)

[pob]

About bronzing and varnish...

Just sold a picture today, the occasion to try the Hahnemühle varnish I bought last week.
It's very very light, it says three coats are necessary, that's good cause you don't have to worry too much about pools of varnish. It dries super fast, like really really fast, almost instantly. It doesn't stink of organic chemicals like other varnishes do. And best of all it looks like the slight bronzing or metamerism I had on pearl RC digital paper is gone! :)

[antbiker]

I've tried varnishing too Pierre but less than happy with it when viewed with the light coming in at an angle as you could see all the dust stuck to it!!

I have calibrated my monitor now - I still have to nurse the shadows using a 'live' histogram when twiddling. I now also get a slight green cast :(

[renon]

Tony, in past I used an Epson 1290 printer and had similar problems as you, green or other color casts and wrong tonality compared to the picture on the screen (my screen was already calibrated). Last year I replaced the Epson 1290 by a Espon R2880. No longer problems, no color casts, very good tonality both ways, using the printer internal settings or using the photoshop color management and the right icm-profiles. But you must take in account that the picture on the screen looks more brilliant. For me it's something like comparing a slide and a print. My wife has an Epson RX585, an all-in-one printer-scanner-copier . The bw and color prints using the printer internal color management look great, too, no color casts in the bw prints. I made not so good experiences with online-printing services.