Low-use colour printer.

[_larky]

Hello.

So, I'm using Photobox for my prints at the moment, but I'm going to start printing A4 and I'd like a little more control. So I decided to print myself. I will do B&W also, but I've decided to shoot mainly colour, it forces me to be better I think.

I use a Mac, I'm not fussed about speed, but I want good quality and I'd prefer if it didn't get the hump if not used for 2-3 months. I'll print to glossy paper (I'll be asking that question another time!).

In the past I've used Epson and HP printers, I found HP to be better. But I don't know if that's still true? I have a little Canon Selphy which is great, no dots. I'd like to get as close to that as possible. For me quality is 100% the top priority. If it takes an hour per sheet, I don't care. If it needs to be drip fed honey, I'm down with that.

Any advice? It's a minefield out there and I don't trust reviews.

Cheers.

[bwcolor]

I prefer the pigment based printers with 9-12 ink colors. If you want good B&W then you want more rather than less ink colors. I presently use and am happy with the Canon Pro 9500. Paper is also of great concern. I'm hooked on Hahnemuhle paper. I don't think that good and cheap will go together. I also have a little Selphy and I think that this is as good as cheap gets.

[venchka]

Good. Cheap. Pick one.
Several friends have Epson printers from the 2400 to the 48xx or maybe it's a 49xx. Anyway, all of these printers have an Epson feature called Advanced Black & White. I have seen their B&W prints. Very nice.
I went a different route. Another friend was moving up from a Canon iPF5000 to a Canon iPF6xxx. I got the 5000 at a very good price. I love it! 12 130ml ink cartridges. It costs $75 to replace each one. The good news: Those large ink cartridges last forever.
My previous inkjet was an Epson 1280. It cost $50 to replace the ink and they ran out often. Very often. Any printer with 80ml and up ink cartridges will be MUCH cheaper to operate in the long run.

[sonofdanang]

Epson uses 3 out of four different black inks depending on the profile. Light Light Black, Light Black and either Matte Black or Photo Black depending on the media profile. It works insanely well, particularly if you couple it with a workflow like the one outlined on Chris Crawford's site.

For a thousand bucks you can get a 17" wide printer from Epson. Have a look at their refurb plan. Occasionally there is some very good value to be had there.

The 9 and 11-ink Epson K3 and HDR inksets are pretty wow. If you're proofing for other machines, the 11-ink system is the way to go. If you're printing for shows, portfolio, etc, go with the 9-ink system. Save money, buy media.

Enjoy.

[_larky]

Where did the word cheap creep in I'm prepared to pay. Personally I don't like Epson, bad times, so am looking more towards HP or maybe Canon. Or maybe an old A3+ Kodak Dye Sub

[sonofdanang]

Well, if you're prepared to pay, consider dye transfer... Just kidding.
I'm using an Epson 7890 and 9600. They use very little ink and produce very good results. Better than dye transfer for my money.
But if you've had bad luck with Epson, I understand. Still...

What I did was walk into the supplier and ask for a demonstration after pointing out that I was "willing to pay" and if they proved, with my file, from loading to soft-proof to print that it was what I wanted to see, I'd make a deposit pending further questions based on what I'd seen during the demonstration.

They did. I'm happy. My printing is all in-house now. YMMV

[peripatetic]

A Canon Pro 9000 II can be had very cheaply just now. Inks of course are more expensive in the small cartridges, but the dye inks look great and are a bit cheaper, at the expense of a slight difference in longevity - but I don't really care whether my prints are good for 100 years or only 50. There are slightly fewer papers with easy profiles for dye inks though.

I also strongly recommend using Lightroom and getting the Luminous Landscape video tutorial, just follow the instructions and your prints will be great.

Buy ink from 7dayshop, and the Canon photo rag paper too. Brings the prices down to a very competitive level.

My next printer though will probably be an Epson 3990 or similar. But they cost £1000, and I got my Canon for about £170!!! Very very happy with the prints. Definitely better than Photobox - or at least more fun and just as good.

I know it's heresy round here but I actually prefer inkjet prints to silver. (Yes, even in B&W.)

The Canon/Hahnemuhle photo rag is stunning

[bwcolor]

Originally Posted by _larky

Where did the word cheap creep in I'm prepared to pay. Personally I don't like Epson, bad times, so am looking more towards HP or maybe Canon. Or maybe an old A3+ Kodak Dye Sub

My fault ... sorry..

How is Dye Sub for B&W?

[venchka]

Explain your troubles with Epson. What model or models? How long ago? The market moves swiftly. Stuff gets made right.
That said, Canon's 16 bit plug-in for Photoshop absolutely makes better prints than the 8 bit output from Lightroom 3. I think the Prograf 5100 is the entry level model with that feature.
On the other hand, Epson routinely offers a special on the 3880. In a nutshell: Buy the ink. The printer is free.
Ink usage/cost may still favor the big Canon printers. Ink is the long term REAL cost of inkjet printing. At one time, Epson printers wasted a humongous amount of ink switching between photo and matte black ink. Canon does not. Epson may have corrected that. Check into that.
HP is pretty much a non-starter in my circle of friends. I own a letter size HP with a photo ink set. Nice prints. Horrible ink costs. It has been relegated to text printing since I got the Canon 5000.
Good luck.

[_larky]

"I also strongly recommend using Lightroom and getting the Luminous Landscape video tutorial, just follow the instructions and your prints will be great."

Do you have a link to the video, I'm struggling to Google it.

The more I poke people, the more I hear Canon mentioned...

[gavinlg]

I had an epson printer. I wouldn't buy an epson printer again.

I wish I bought a Canon pro 9000/9500 instead.

[mfunnell]

Originally Posted by fdigital

I had an epson printer. I wouldn't buy an epson printer again.

I wish I bought a Canon pro 9000/9500 instead.

That's a mistake I didn't make (one of the few). I'd personally recommend the Canon Pro9500 (which I have) or the Pro9500II (which I assume is even better).

However, that recommendation comes with caveats. You have to learn colour-managed workflow to get top-class results. You have to get commercially done profiles for the papers you use, or buy a colourimeter/calibrator thingy to build your own, if you're going to get best results. There's a learning curve.

But for best results on matte, and semi-matte and other variations of paper type and surface (which I often like) it does the business nicely. For quick and cheerful results on gloss RC(ish) paper with maximum punch (and without the need for all that learning curve) you're better off with a dye printer rather than a pigment one. If you want larger sizes (to A3+ : 13"x19") in the Canon marque then I'm sure the Pro9000(I or II) would do a great job. If I had the space, I'd have both. However, I get by with the A3+ Pro9500 and a consumer A4/Letter dye printer (also used for boring document printing) which gives me a happy balance.

I don't think I've printed smaller than A5 (half A4; think: roughly half Letter) on the Pro9500. Most of my 4x6, 5x7, and even some A4 stuff that suits gloss paper gets printed on the dye printer. The good stuff gets the good printer (and usually the larger sizes).

...Mike

[_larky]

Seems the Canon/Epson debate is strong. Depending upon who you ask you get either rave reviews of a barrage of swear words when you mention Epson. I never had much luck, in that after a while they'd block and give up. It's a hard decision.