Home printing

[savona]

Does anyone do any printing at home? I was just wondering what printer everyone used. A friend of mine just picked up an Epson R1800 and he is ragging on my Canon i9900. I know neither of these printers are top notch, but as far as image quality goes I think the Canon wins it hands down.

For one, my blacks seem much deeper/darker, well more black. Where the epson seems like a grey and sort of see lines in the shadows. The color of the epson is nice though, but I would not say BETTER than the canon.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I use an i9900, and I would say that it is "top notch". I've never seen prints like that from a home printer.

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

Ok, I am going to open a can of worms here. Just a little background first thou...I have been printing on Inkjet printers for over 5 years, in a professional atmosphere where consistency and permanence is a major issue. Reputation in this industry is paramount and I am not willing to risk my reputation without careful consideration.

Canon i9900 uses a dyed based ink for printing. It is a well known fact that dye based ink suffers from gas fading and have a very limited permanence. How fast will they fade? How severe will they fade? It is pretty much up for debate, but fade they will. It has been proven time and time again.

I have personally tested both Canon dye-based ink prints and Espon Ultrachrome side by side and there is NO comparison on permanence. The Canon print faded and when moisture got on the print, the inks ran. Not so with the Espon print.

Is the print quality better on the Canon as compared to the Epson? That also is debatable, and I am of the opinion that the Epson exceeds the Canon in quality and permanence. Question is, are you willing to risk your professional reputation on a printer that is KNOWN to produce prints that are susceptible to fading? I know I don’t want a client to come back to me because their print faded. (Since I have owned both the i9900 and Epson 7600, 7800 (K3 inks) I have had the chance to compare prints side by side.)

Epson Ultrachrome Inks on the other hand, (pigment-based inks) do not have this problem. They have a better permanence than your C prints you get from the Lab. Not only is the permanence better, I have NEVER been able to get better prints from my “pro” Lab, over the prints from my Epson 7800 K3 Ink printer. (I carry a box of prints, identical prints, one from the lab and one off the Epson. When I show these prints and ask my peers/fellow photographers to choose the best print it never fails; the Epson print is the one they choose.)

I still have an Epson R1800 in the studio now. Thought I don’t use this printer as often as I should, it is an extremely good printer. The inks are the same pigment-based K3’s as in the larger 7800.

The recently introduced Epson 3800 is an even better option. With a price tag of 1295.00 MSRP and 80 ml. ink cartridges, your print costs are very acceptable. (Using the larger cartridges saves you tremendous amounts of money on ink. The little 10 ml. cartridges are super expensive when compared to the cost of 220 ml. ink cartridges used in the 4800 and up Epson printers.)

Not only is the print quality of the Epson better and more permanent that the dye-based printers...you can use 10 times the types of media in an Epson than a dye-based printer. Try printing on canvas with a dye-basesd printer...NOT happening; textured fine art paper? Again, not happening. Dye-based printers are not intended for professional use. They are less expensive, both initially and to operate, but do not produce professional results.

My advice on this issue is to consider your choice very carefully. If you are doing this as a profession and you turn prints over to a client from a printer that is very susceptible to gas fading, you are playing with your reputation and ultimately, your future.

Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. Print identical prints on the Canon and Epson your friend has. Let them dry identical times and then get the wet. See what happens to them. Print another set. Then tack them in direct sunlight on your balcony or deck for a week…see which one fades and fades quickly. It is a pretty quick, down and dirty way to see which performs the best.

As far as the blacks not being black on the Epson, maybe he isn’t using the proper profiles and set up when printing. I have never had an issue with my Epson’s.

Lastly, just go into any professional lab that prints on wide format inkjets and look at what printers they are using…chances are, you will find Epson 7800 or 9800 printers. But you will never find a Canon dyed-based printer. Nor will you find any of the RIP manufacturers supporting or profiling papers for a dye-based printer. Bottom line, there is a good reason for not using a dye-based printer…they are not capable of producing images with the permanence required from a professional photographer.

Sorry for such a long post! But I have been dealing with this issue for over 6 years now and I have amassed a wealth of information and knowledge on it. I am very picky about the prints I turn over to a client.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Sorry, CJ. I can't afford $1300 for a printer. Otherwise, I might get one!

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

Ron,

Don't take my post as an endorsement for spending 1300.00 on a printer. I understand limited budgets. My outlook is geared toward a professional studio and not that of an ametuer/hobbiest and I sometimes forget that. Sorry! LOL Therefore, take my post as information from that stand point. If you are an ametuer/hobbiest, there are other options and I didn't address those.

Even on a limited budget, there is an 8x10, Epson R800 and 13x19, Epson R1800 printer that eliminates the problem of gas fadding. Both use the K3 Ultrachrome Inks that Epson has in their pro series printers, the X800's.

If the printer is being used for hobbist/casual printing at home, then there isn't an issue. Canon i9900 will probably work fine. However, the Epson R1800 is only 549.00...only 50.00 more than the Canon. (And no fadding issues.)

On a professional level thou, it isn't only an issue of $$; if you ARE printing from a dye-based printer professionally, you are actually placing a value on your professional reputation. (Is your professional reputation worth only 800.00? I think not.) My work comes 90% from word of mouth. Reputation is everything in this industry.

In the mean time, can't afford a 1300.00 printer, using a Local Lab is a much better alternative than using dye-based printers.

It is my experience that a dissatisfied customer will tell 10 people about their BAD experience with a business where a satisfied customer MAY tell 1 person.

Anyone that intends to follow photography as a career path better learn that early. (I average 3 - 5 wedding referrals from each wedding I shoot.) Of course, alot more than just prints goes into that, but I am known for my quality and refusal to compromise on quality issues when it comes to my work.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Oh I getcha. I wasn't complaining. I think it was a very informative post, and I thank you for taking the time. I understand what you're saying, and very much agree. I shoot for fun most of the time, and if someone wants a lot of prints done, I have my local shop do it. I know all about the "runny inks" of the i9900. I do very much like the prints it makes for my personal use, though. If I were a "working stiff" like you, I'd find a way to get a top notch printer.

Again, thanks. :)

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

If I were a "working stiff" like you

Proud be be a "working stiff" as you call it, too. It is very rare that one is able to work in the field he loves and make a living at the same time. So I count myself rather lucky to be able to do that.

More a "labor of love" than a "working stiff."

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Well, again, I didn't mean that in a negative way. I'd love to have my photography be my source of income. As you say, being able to work, doing something you love. I'm certainly jealous!

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

Really no offense taken...but the term "working stiff" is not a term to use concerning a career field you love. It is more of a deragotory term about working a job just to make a buck.

There are those that are "working stiffs" in the photography industry. However, to be really sucessful in this field, (any more generally in any field) you have to love what you do. In this field, it shows if you do not love what you are doing.

Chat and forums are an impersonal way of communcation, you have to be careful of what you post, and as it can hold a different meaning than intended.

[LuisV]

I am an Epson user. I currently print with two for professional output. The main workhorse is the Epson Pro 7800. The printer I use for one off prints and other output (eg. Greeting Cards, etc) is the Epson Stylus 2200.

I won't go into quite as much detail but the main reason for the Epson is the Pigment Ink system. The prints are archival on both on a huge array of papers. The 2200 uses the Ultrachrome ink set and the 7800 uses the K3 Ultrachrome Ink set. Both produce excellent images. The main reasons, for me....

1) Best shadow detail in the market.
2) Best B&W images, hands down. The 2200 was great and the 7800 (K3 Inks) took it up a notch.
3) Driver is widely supported and profiles are excellent.
4) RIP (Raster Image Processing) software is readiliy available giving us a wide array of options.
5) Output consistency
6) Paper/medium options.

Now there are new entries in the Pigment ink market. Canon and HP have both made offereings. Why? The reasons mentioned above.

As for $1300.... well $1300 buys you a 17" width for true 16x20 prints on your desktop. That's awesome! However, if you are looking for a 13" width you can get a K3 Pigment printer for $750 or an 8" width for under $400. There are options out there.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Now I've got a question. One thing I love about my i9900 is that when I print out an image that looks noisy on my monitor (I'm talking noisy), it looks smooth as butter, and yet still sharp when I print. Do the epsons have noise reduction like this?

[LuisV]

To answer the question yes. They have noise reduction in the drivers. It's under the advanced settings and under Photo Enhancement. I deal with (2200 and 7800) and both drivers have it but it's not something I would rely on regardless of the brand.

Noise reduction implies a reduction of sharpness. There are no two ways about it. You cannot have one without giving up the other. So if you apply noise reduction you are reducing sharpness. Especially if you deal with a global style approach that in-camera or driver based (printer/scanner) noise reduction performs.

Some noise reduction routines/techniques can apply selective reduction using masks or "analyze" images and apply different NR in varying amounts. These are far better methods. Even then, you are losing some detail but it's much better controlled. If you have a good sharp image to start with and control noise reduction you can get fantastic results.

Why all this to answer the question? Well it's just that I'd think you'd be happier if you relied on a good noise reduction in your workflow rather than letting a catch all system deal with it. It might give you good results but I think when you compare it to another method you might end up happier.

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

I am With LuisV on this...noise reduction always affects the sharpness. I do not use the "canned" Epson driver to print however. I use a RIP that far out performs the Epson drivers in several ways. Therefore, when I have to use noise reduction, (and I only use Noise Ninja) I can control just how much or little noise reduction that is applied...the driver doesn't do it for me.

I can get images as sharp or as soft as I prefer. Media plays a part in the sharpness of the final print also. I have printed on everything from high gloss media to textured fine art and canvas and the final images are fantastic. I have even Printed on Metal with the Epson 7800's. (Very Cool!)

Epson isn't the only printer out there, but they are the leader in the field for the moment. Canon and HP have stepped up to the plate now, introducing archival inks that have much better life than the previous dyed based inks they used prior. They will have to continue to improve, and fast, because Epson has been using this technology and ink long before the others. That is the main reason I use Epson, tried and true...Canon and HP have only recently introduced archival inks and therefore, have to prove their product.

The future should hold great things in this area. Technology is improving rapidly.

[GK PHOTO]

Epson holds it down no comp at all, Cannon may have the cameras but Epson deff has the printers.

[LuisV]

Epson holds it down no comp at all, Cannon may have the cameras but Epson deff has the printers.

Canon does not have the cameras..... beg to differ there......

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

Canon does not have the cameras..... beg to differ there......

Is still all a matter of opinion. BUT...Try taking a Nikon out to a dungeon dark football stadium and crank up that ISO to 1600 & 3200; your images will be FULL of noise. Canon on the other hand, no problem. I use both 1600 and 3200 in sports and weddings with little of no noise problem.

One of the main reason for switching from Nikon after 20+ years. Not to mention that Nikon seems to be stuck on the 1.5 Crop sensor. Bottom line thou...use what works. Nikon fell behind in the digital race a while back. I will say this much thou, Canon's CPS seems to be better than Nikons NPS version. I have had to send in bodies for cleaning and service and I get them back within 3-5 days regularly and they do exceptional work. I used to have to fight NPS just to get the to fix it right.