Hardware Forum / Peripherals / Printers / February 2006
Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Zippy Zoo - 26 Feb 2006 03:27 GMT I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has been good. Now, for my specifications.
Cost - Under $250 Inks - Must be six ink of better and of latest archival evolution (ex. Chromlife, etc) Papers - I tend to use high-end paper developed by the actual manufacturer
Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be as good as those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
This all said - which model is going to be best between Epson and Canon?
Thanks - KSC
rafe b - 26 Feb 2006 04:09 GMT >I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has >been good. Now, for my specifications. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >This all said - which model is going to be best between Epson and Canon? Save another $100 and go for the Epson R800. My two cents, anyway.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
measekite - 26 Feb 2006 16:04 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >My two cents, anyway. > AND IT IS NOT EVEN WORTTH THAT
>rafe b >www.terrapinphoto.com > Arthur Entlich - 27 Feb 2006 15:19 GMT The current Canon dye inks "may" provide that kind of permanence, the R800 definately will.
Art
>>I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has >>been good. Now, for my specifications. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com SleeperMan - 26 Feb 2006 09:46 GMT > I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 > has been good. Now, for my specifications. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Canon? > Thanks - KSC You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200 or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss.
 Signature Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
Jan Alter - 26 Feb 2006 13:11 GMT > You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has > longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for > ip4200 or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 > ink printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, > since there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination > of canon and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss. Well maybe with the Canon IP4200 you can have it all if you only need the photos to last 20 - 30 years and stay under $250 for the initial cost. I haven't used the the IP4200 and have used the Epson R1800, which is a wide format version of the R800. The Epson gives beautiful results, but the R800 will run you initially $325 + to start. and it's a 7 color printer with an additional "glosser" cartridge to even out the surface sheen of the black on certain papers. Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less longevity than pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black. Epson is using pigment on all their color and black. Additionally, speaking for the Epson; the cartridges are small. They hold about 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge that will start to add up quickly in ink costs. The basic way to get around this is to investigate refilling and using a chip resetter. Not only do you save the environment of cartridges but you save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM will run you, and using quality ink get excellent results.
 Signature Jan Alter bearpuf@verizon.net or jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
>> I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 >> has been good. Now, for my specifications. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Canon? >> Thanks - KSC SleeperMan - 26 Feb 2006 15:06 GMT >> You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. >> Epson has longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > environment of cartridges but you save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM > will run you, and using quality ink get excellent results. but in that case you can forget long lasting Epson famous state... BTW...Canon uses pigment black for text only, while for photos it uses dye black
 Signature Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
measekite - 26 Feb 2006 16:02 GMT >>You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has >>longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Canon uses dye base ink for the color, which has less longevity than >pigment base inks. Canon uses pigment for the black. WRONGO BONGO. CANON USES PIGMENT FOR BLACK ONE SIDED TEXT AND DYE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE
>Epson is using pigment >on all their color and black. Additionally, speaking for the Epson; the >cartridges are small. They hold about 12cc of ink, and at $12 a cartridge >that will start to add up quickly in ink costs. > The basic way to get around this is to investigate refilling BOY IS THAT STUPID
>and using a >chip resetter. MORE LUNACY
>Not only do you save the environment of cartridges but you > CAN CLOG YOUR PRINTER
>save at least 2/3 rds of what OEM will run you, and using quality ink get >excellent results. > AND THAT IS WHY MOST PEOPLE USE QUALITY OEM INK
rafe b - 26 Feb 2006 13:30 GMT >You can't have all...either you decide for quality or longevity. Epson has >longer life, Canon has better photos. Now you decide, but i'd go for ip4200 >or ip5200. Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink >printer - 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money, since >there's no difference in quality, only price is bigger. Combination of canon >and canon's photo paper pro is the one you can't miss. You're basically right about most of this.
Dye inks on the right paper still look somewhat better than pigments.
For my taste, though, the differences are now so minor that it's no longer worth fooling with dye inks. Just my personal take on the matter.
FYI, the printers I've owned and used since 1998: Epson 600, 750, two 1160s, Canon S9000, HP DesignJet 30. Currently, Epson 7000 and R1800.
I did a lot of experimenting with pigment inks on the two 1160s, and found pigments (back then) to be unacceptable. The R1800 is the first printer I've owned that's actually built to use pigment inks.
I'm getting to that age where I'm thinking, it would be nice if a few of my prints outlast me.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
measekite - 26 Feb 2006 16:00 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >For my taste, OH GOD HE EATS DA INK
>though, the differences >are now so minor that it's no longer worth [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I'm getting to that age ANOTHER OLD FART
>where I'm thinking, >it would be nice if a few of my prints [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >www.terrapinphoto.com > Dan Wenz - 26 Feb 2006 16:30 GMT > I'm getting to that age where I'm thinking, > it would be nice if a few of my prints > outlast me. That's scary - I'm 72, so I'd need inks to last only a couple of years :-( Fortunately, my daughter's the family genealogist, so I guess she'd appreciate archival inks/papers. Right now I use a Canon i4000, no idea of the lasting qualities of Canon's inks. I'm probably more interested in the lifespan of digital video tapes, which I'm using to transfer 8 mm movie film, S-VHS tapes, and Hi 8 tapes using my mini DV camera.
Jon O'Brien - 26 Feb 2006 18:15 GMT > Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer - 3 > colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money... Only if you're prepared to accept a reduced gamut. Try printing Ferrari scarlet with a five-ink printer, for example.
Jon.
SleeperMan - 26 Feb 2006 18:55 GMT >> Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer - >> 3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jon. i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any color, i don't see why red would be one... It's all physical - since all colors are composed of three basic, i don't see why all colors wouldn't be reproduced with only those basic three. I really can't understand why TV screens doesn't have 6, 8 or even 10 colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all available ones...
 Signature Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
rafe b - 26 Feb 2006 19:22 GMT >i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any >color, i don't see why red would be one... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all >available ones... You're making vast generalizations about color and yet not even stopping to consider the distinction between additive and subtractive color.
Have you heard of the IEC? Ever used or created an ICC profile?
Ever heard of a Colorspan printer?
Why do printers use K ink instead of just CMY? Do you know what UCR and GCR mean?
In short, what are your qualifications for speaking with such authority on the issue of color and gamut?
I understand the anger at Epson, Canon, et. al. for their outrageous ink prices.
But don't assume their engineers are total idiots. They are not.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
Arthur Entlich - 27 Feb 2006 15:52 GMT No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling their souls to the highest devil.
Obviously, someone is willing to pay for more ink colors, so there is indeed likely to be some qualitative differences (again, mainly in pigments which do not have the same qualities to mix and reflect color that dye inks do).
If they were really serious about producing a CMYK printer, they could use that engineering expertise to produce heads with smaller dots and more complex dot patterning. Using more colors, especially the low color load ones, allows them to use larger drops, and speed up the printing process without using more dots or faster mechanics and drivers. It also allows them to sell a lot of cheap fluids like water, glycol and alcohol and very little colorant, which is more costly. They also design the drivers to use about twice the amount of load color loaded inks to the high color loaded, which does indeed burn through more cartridges.
As least some HP printers used twice size cartridges for LM, LC, K, LK and Y, so they tended to run out more evenly.
With Epson's current system, each time a cartridge runs out there is a purging of all heads, so a heck of a lot of ink is lost down the drain. That was also an engineering decision, yes?
Art
>>i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any >>color, i don't see why red would be one... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com rafe b - 28 Feb 2006 02:24 GMT >No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling >their souls to the highest devil. Heh. Who do *you* work for, Art?
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
Arthur Entlich - 28 Feb 2006 05:14 GMT I work for me, but I spend much of my time these days working for improving the state of society, the planet, and values I hold dear. Its what gives me the ability to speak with frankness and honesty about products, issues or corporate actions. I honor no sacred cows.
Sorry if that goes against what you choose to believe about me, but you are certainly entitled to whatever it is you chose to believe. At the end of the day, I have a pretty good idea where the truth sits.
If engineers (sacred cow, eh?) were just ethical enough as a group to say "no" to the bean counters and military industrial complex once in a while, we'd have a lot less garbage on the planet, a lot fewer unsafe products, a lot less recalls and lawsuits, and many less bombs, armaments, and weapons of mass destruction. Sure engineers help make great and neat stuff too, like heart lung machines, or jaws of life, or computers, but that's the easy thing to work doing. I worry about the ones that will do whatever they are asked or told because its a job, regardless of the consequences of their "great innovation and intellect".
We are each responsible for what we help to spawn. Not only that, but in spite of what many of the profession seem to believe about themselves, engineers are fallible. They aren't the gods of science and technology many assume themselves to be.
If you don't think Epson's engineers were involved in the design of many of the anti-consumer and anti-environmental technologies built into their more recent printers, I have a nicely engineered bridge to sell you.
Art
>>No, their engineers aren't idiots, working for "the man" and selling >>their souls to the highest devil. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com rafe b - 28 Feb 2006 12:15 GMT >I work for me Isn't that nice. What pays the rent or the mortgage? An inheritance? Lottery win? Drug dealing?
Or what did you for a living, before you "retired?"
I really don't give a flip what you think about engineers, Art. Though I can safely assume that you were *not* an engineeer, I think.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
Arthur Entlich - 28 Feb 2006 13:53 GMT Gee, Rafe, I didn't think you cared...
Are you offering me some work and need a copy of my c.v.?
I've pretty much revealed all, at one time or another, but I'm not making it easy for you... you'll have to do a google easter egg hunt, if you really care enough.
> Isn't that nice. What pays the rent or the mortgage? > An inheritance? Lottery win? Drug dealing?
Why? Do you remember buying something from me at a Dead concert? ;-)
;-)
Art
>>I work for me
> Or what did you for a living, before you "retired?" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com measekite - 28 Feb 2006 16:38 GMT > Gee, Rafe, I didn't think you cared... > > Are you offering me some work and need a copy of my c.v.? YOU SHOUKD BE LUCKY TO HAVE A RESUME. I AM SURE YOU DO NOT HAVE A CV
> I've pretty much revealed all, at one time or another, but I'm not > making it easy for you... you'll have to do a google easter egg hunt, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> rafe b >> www.terrapinphoto.com measekite - 28 Feb 2006 06:51 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Heh. Who do *you* work for, Art? > HE WORKS FOR THE SIERRA CLUB
>rafe b >www.terrapinphoto.com > Jon O'Brien - 26 Feb 2006 19:38 GMT > i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with > any color, i don't see why red would be one... Maybe the exact duplication of a colour has never been important to you. And I said Ferrari scarlet, not 'red'. There are also blues that can't be reproduced with CMYK printers, even the best lith printers. If colour accuracy is important to you then you need a printer with the widest possible gamut.
Jon.
measekite - 26 Feb 2006 21:14 GMT TALKING FROM THE ANUS
> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Jon. > Jon O'Brien - 26 Feb 2006 23:26 GMT In article <0ToMf.25301$_S7.11238@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, inkystinky@oem.com (measekite the troll) expressed an opinion on something he knows bugger all about, as usual:
Were you an artist trying to produce prints of your work, rather than a bullshit artist trying to mislead people with your ignorance, you'd be aware of the problem.
I quoted Ferrari scarlet as being problematical because I know someone who gave up trying to reproduce the colour himself on his CMYK printer and went to a print shop using Roland eight-colour inkjets to get the job done, because they *could* reproduce it.
The person running the print shop, as part of his picture mounting and framing business, bought the Roland printers in the first place because he is a marine artist and got fed up with the offset litho printer he usually did business with not being able to reproduce some of the blues in his paintings.
Many of his customers come to him precisely because they, too, find his printers can reproduce colours in their paintings that others have failed to reproduce.
If you took some time off from being infantile in this newsgroup and looked at some of the gamut charts displayed on a plethora of web sites, you'd see that there are many colours that are problematic in printing. Just because you aren't discerning enough to care whether or not you can produce them on your cheapo printer doesn't mean that it's not an important requirement for others.
Jon.
Edwin Pawlowski - 26 Feb 2006 20:10 GMT "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with any > color, i don't see why red would be one... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all > available ones... There is a difference between the resolution of a TV screen and a printed photo. One limitation with using three colors is getting the mix just right, especially with very fine gradients. It is not easy getting the overlays exact.
If you're happy with your finished photos, I'm happy for you. It could be though, that they would be even better with other ink, other paper, other color balance, other exposure. Much of phography is very subjective. When Grandma sees the baby's smiling face she says it is a great picture, no matter how out of balance the skin tone may be or how fuzzy the focus. Sometimes we just want more out of it.
 Signature Ed http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
SleeperMan - 26 Feb 2006 21:00 GMT > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >> i've done my share of photos, and so far i never had problems with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it is a great picture, no matter how out of balance the skin tone may > be or how fuzzy the focus. Sometimes we just want more out of it. ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a question of which color is right? Since first mistake comes in in the camera, then monitor etc...it's no point of printer being, say 0.00001% accurate if all other is only 0.01 % accurate. That what i meant. But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said. There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of color as picture have in order to get perfect print. Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn... have fun
 Signature Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
rafe b - 26 Feb 2006 21:54 GMT >There's a limit somewhere, otherwise printers would use so many millions of >color as picture have in order to get perfect print. >Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn... Again, you don't even recognize the distinction between additive and subtractive color.
Cameras and eyes capture additive primaries.
Prints work by laying down subtractive primaries.
These are not trivial, academic distinctions.
And nobody's forcing you to buy a 6-color or 8-color or 10-color printer. If the advantage isn't meaningful to you, don't buy it.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
measekite - 27 Feb 2006 07:14 GMT WHO CARES
> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >www.terrapinphoto.com > Edwin Pawlowski - 27 Feb 2006 04:22 GMT "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >>
> ok let's stop here. I see you're going into pro mode, while general thread > was regarding printers for general public. If going into pro, it's also a > question of which color is right? Pro mode? Wanting good quality photos makes me a pro? That is just so silly. I do want properly exposed, well lit, natural looking photos, but that does not make me a pro. Consider me a part of the general public.
> But you go on with your 10 or even 20 color printers and have a good luck > working only for ink, while us mortals are quite happy with what i said. Mine has a mere 6 colors. What I spend on ink in a year I can earn in a few hours so it is not a big deal. I happen to like rib eye steaks, but if you are happy with round steaks, enjoy them.
measekite - 27 Feb 2006 07:13 GMT >"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >you are happy with round steaks, enjoy them. > ASK DA BEEFER ABOUT STEAKS
> Arthur Entlich - 27 Feb 2006 16:17 GMT That's exactly the point, however. The images only need to please the person who is "paying for them". So, for some, more color accuracy is a must either because they want it, can see it, or it is mission critical and a must have, and for some people it's an unnecessary or costly or time consuming endeavor that's just not worth it. Happily, there are printers made for both of you! Whoopee!
Art
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hours so it is not a big deal. I happen to like rib eye steaks, but if > you are happy with round steaks, enjoy them. Arthur Entlich - 27 Feb 2006 16:02 GMT Again, be careful confusing RGB light separations and the reflective inks using CMY/K, they do not work the same way.
In light, add red and green and get yellow. Change the mix and the type of yellow alters. With the CMYK situation, the base yellow ink color is the "purest" yellow you are going to get from that printer. If it is too saturated, there isn't a lot you can do other than space the dots further apart.
And lastly, digital cameras or LCD screens or CRTs are mostly RGB and cannot reproduce some colors very well. Try to get a good variation of greens and cyans on a TV...
I do take your point that everyone has different expectations of color. We even al have differing abilities to see colors, and our ability worsens considerably as we age, and our eye lenses yellow.
If you are pleased with the output you get, then its good enough if you are not providing your work to a demanding 3rd party. However, I still wouldn't want to be reprinting my stuff every few years due to fading issues ;-)
Art
>>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Oops...but there's a catch...digital camera catches only 3...damn... > have fun Arthur Entlich - 27 Feb 2006 15:39 GMT I hate to say it, but you fell down on that last one. Television, first of all uses RGB primary light to product its image, and it still lacks a lot of hues.
Printers use reflective CMY, which is just not the same in terms of how colors are made. In particular the reds, greens and blues, all suffer in accuracy. As I stated before, the smaller the dot and more dot patterns that can be created, the more shades can be represented to the human eye.
Even RGB filters in digital cameras (using the Bayer matrix pattern) are not able to reproduce all greens properly. Sony has added a darker green filter for instance for their CCD chips.
Art
>>>Oh, that 6 ink or better...bullshit. All you need is 5 ink printer - >>>3 colors and two blacks. More than that is wasting money... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > colors, but only basic 3- yet - a wonder happens - you still see all > available ones... measekite - 26 Feb 2006 16:05 GMT WHILE THE CANON I9900 PRODUCES BETTER LOOKING RESULTS YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THE EPSON 2400
>I am about to buy a new photo printer. My old Epson Stylus Photo 870 has >been good. Now, for my specifications. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JXStern - 26 Feb 2006 21:04 GMT >Cost - Under $250 >Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell >should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be as good as >those produced by an automated photo developing machine. Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be considered for professional work.
Out of curiosity, what's the price of whatever the next technology up is these days (sublimation? transfer? some better ink tech?)
J.
Bob Headrick - 26 Feb 2006 21:50 GMT >>Cost - Under $250 >>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be > considered for professional work. Well, the advances made in home printing in the last half dozen or so years *have* been pretty amazing. There are printers available from several manufacturers for well under $250 that can noticeably exceed the print quality from the typical one hour photo developing place.
- Bob Headrick
measekite - 27 Feb 2006 07:14 GMT >>> Cost - Under $250 >>> Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > several manufacturers for well under $250 that can noticeably exceed > the print quality from the typical one hour photo developing place. ESPECIALLY CANON -- RIGHT BOOB?
> - Bob Headrick Arthur Entlich - 27 Feb 2006 16:05 GMT A good inkjet printer will still beat a laser, and the other technologies are just not really appropriate for most image reproduction. (and not necessarily better either). The next step up in terms of quality might be a laser controlled digitally burned color "silver" print using a wet lab.
Art
>>Cost - Under $250 >>Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > J.
|
|
|