Premium Printing

[TexasTrails]

I'm interested in buying a new large format inkjet to output pro quality prints and I'm looking for recommendations.

I have a EPSON Stylus 380 that I use for small stuff up to 8 x 10. I'm looking to print up to 11 x 17, or optimally 13 x 19. I have a QMS 330 Color Laser that I use for large format proofing which gives me fanastic output for a laser, but I can't output to photo paper stock with this device.

[CobyPhoto]

Johnathan,

I suggest you search Epson in the forum and see what you find. Epson still has the best quality output of the larger ink-jet systems on the market. (I have owned all three - Epson, Canon and HP - I will not go back to Canon or HP until they make DRASTIC improvements in their print heads and qualtiy.)

There is alot of information already posted that will help. If you have further questions then, post and ask. Feel free to PM me if you have questions as well.

CJ

[Jake]

Coby, have you used the HP Z3100 series?
I know of a few high end photogs that went from the Epson 9800 to the new HP's and said that were greatness.
I've never used either, so I was just wondering.

[PhotoJinx]

I bought a Canon Pixma Pro 9000 about 4 months ago and I am very pleased with the prints I get from it. It prints up to 13 X 19. As with any printer, color calibration of the monitor is very important, unfortunatly the only monitor calibrations I have done is with Photoshop's Adobe Gamma. Black and whites are also very impressive.

Canon has a special offer here http://estore.usa.canon.com/PromoList.asp if you purchase the Pixma Pro 9500, they are throwing in a Spider 2 Color Calibration tool. The 9500 is a step up from the 9000. The difference is the pigmented inks used by the 9500.

I was at Precision Camera in Austin last week and they had a large format Epson printer (24" roll was on this one I believe) that was VERY impressive, mainly due to the different stock it was capable of printing on. Print quality, judged by an old man with bad eyesite, even wearing my glasses, didn't seem to be any better than my 9000.

[CobyPhoto]

First,

Canon Pixma series: Non Archival Inks. If that isn't a concern, then it is great. All Dye-Based inks have pronounced Gas-fading over time. If you are printing for clients, that is an issue you DO NOT want to have. Avoid Dye Based inks.

Jake,

The issue I have with Canon and HP series printers (and no, I haven't tried the newer HP's lately, thou I have seen them in action) is the print engine: THERMAL Thermal print engines cost more over the long run and do not give the best results in detail as do Piezo. Thermal heads clog easily and have alot shorter life span. Further, they are only capable of one droplet size. Peizo...up to 6 droplet sizes per line = better detail, tonal gradiation and contrast.

I have a friend that 'had' one of the Canon IPF 9000 series printers and used it similar to mine...about 10 rolls of paper a month. After 6 months of printing, he started having severe clogging problems with the heads. Canon Tech services answer to this: Buy a new print head! (Even thou they are user replaceable, they are about 6-700.00!) Tech service said they only have a useful life of about 8-12 months unless, like in my friends' case, he uses the printer more than average. Can we say TOO expensive? I am still using the same head on my Epson 7800's and have NO clogging or quality issues at all, after 2 years. My print head cost? 750.00 INSTALLED! I don't even have to do it myself!

Lucia inks in the Canon system...about 35% more expensive than Epsons. HP's even worse.

Bottom line, Epson has and still is the leader in this industry. Canon and HP have only lately stepped into the Archival large format printer arena and have a long way to go in catching up to Epson.

Caveat: My issue is quality, not so much quantity. I want the best print and most control over the final output as possible. Further, I use a professional RIP written JUST for the Epson printers that I use. License for each printer. (Gets a little costly for casual use.) I feel that is how I get the optimal results from these printers, both in quality AND economy. Lastly, I am a photographer, not a fine art printer. I don't use Matte Black ink. Epson is going to be expensive to swap back and forth between Matte and Photo Black inks. I do find that if it is a photographer running the printer, the Matte black is never used or photo black is used in the place and adjustments made to get similar results. If you want to swap between blacks, one of the smaller, say 3800 Epson printers would bebetter - less ink waste in the swap.

Other printers work and do a great job. However, if you want studio quality and archival quality prints, Epson still has the best system for this. point in case: look at all the Sam's and COSTCO photo labs: Anything larger than 10x13" is now printed on Epson 7800's!

CJ

[TexasTrails]

For my budget until I can justify something bigger the comments made about the Epson R2400 make it very appealing to me. I don't intend to do production volume anytime soon, but the features I am looking for seem there. What's big on my list are professional level results on premium fine art media and quality glossy output up to tabloid size.

Any pros or cons on the R2400 in terms of performance with fine art papers (not the Office Depot variety). How do you handle switching between inks to use the Photo Black for glossy media and Matte Black for fine art papers?

[Jake]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Coby! I think we are about to get a couple of 7800's in the next month or so here at the office(day job office).
I was just surprised to see the reviews of the HP from places like Luminous-Landscape.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-review.shtml
And after doing a guick search on some paid "pro forums" to see some of my favorite photogs dropping the 9800's for the new HP's and singing such praises for them. One of them being an Epson fan for over 10years and then just switched!

Anyway, I'm sure the 7800's will be awesome if we end up getting them. I just hope I can run some personal stuff on them...

[CobyPhoto]

Jonathan,

While I think the 2400 would be a good choice, the 3800 would be even better. Larger ink cartridges = less coss per print, plus you would be able to produce true 16x20" prints. The 3800 has minimal ink waste (still wastes ink) when changing from Matte to Photo etc. but it isn't going to be as bad a the smaller 2400 cartridges.

The price for the 3800 is 1295.00. (Anywhere you go.) I would think about waiting until you can afford the 3800 over the 2400. There is a local Epson Pro Graphics Dealer in town that has these and they even offer discounts to TPF members on papers and inks for them.

CJ

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

Thanks for taking the time to reply Coby! I think we are about to get a couple of 7800's in the next month or so here at the office(day job office).
I was just surprised to see the reviews of the HP from places like Luminous-Landscape.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-review.shtml
And after doing a guick search on some paid "pro forums" to see some of my favorite photogs dropping the 9800's for the new HP's and singing such praises for them. One of them being an Epson fan for over 10years and then just switched!

Anyway, I'm sure the 7800's will be awesome if we end up getting them. I just hope I can run some personal stuff on them...

I never trust reviews on forums such as LL or others. What I will take to heart is a pro that has been and has used the equipment and can tell me why. Only time will tell if a swap from Epson to HP was the right choice. Any time companies give out product like this, the reviews come in favorable to the company lending the equipment.

Then again, depends upon the photographer and the main focus of their business. Fine Art photographers and Studio (Family, seniors, wedding etc.) have different needs and don't really require the same set of standards.

Just a side note thou, the 12 inks in the HP system and the Thermal head are what allow it to get close to the 8 Inks and Piezo system of the Epson system. The variable droplet size with the Piezo gives the wider gamut where in the HP System it requires actual additional inks. That is a simplified comparision, but you get the drift.

CJ