| Author |
Message |
leo
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject:
large print |
|
|
Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19 print?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Skip M
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:BYmqd.5549$NU3.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
print?
Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no direct |
competition from any other printer mfr? If you want longevity, the Epson
2200 has no equal, but if you want speed of printing, the Canon is the best.
I think the Canon has better color, too, but that's my opinion and only
applies to what I do, not to any thing any one else does. One advantage the
Epson has over the Canon is its ability to do a better job at B&W, and
that's what may get me to buy one.
Cost of a 13x19 print varies according to what paper used, can be as low as
$2, easily getting to $4, and there's some paper my wife uses that runs
about $32 for a 36"x24" sheet, so the paper alone is about $16 for a 13x19.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markeau
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:11 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
I am not a pro, just a 30+yr photo hobbyist. Since getting a i9900 a
few months ago I have been printing LOTS of 12x16's (same aspect ratio
as my Canon S400 cam, and pre-made frames can be easily/cheaply found,
like at Aaron Brothers). I also just got a Nikon Coolscan V and so
have been making 12x18's of some of my slides/negatives. This has all
been huge fun for me - and ppl who see the results are asking for
copies, I even sold a few! I have also been printing a lot of
borderless 5x7 and 8.5x11.
Yes it is noted that the dye inks of the i9900 probably won't last as
long as the pigment ink of the Epson 2200; but, longevity also depends
on paper type. There is alot to read on this subject. I have heard
that when using the mfgr's best paper, the i9900 may have a print life
of 38yrs and the 2200 90yrs. For more longevity I have heard the
prints can be laminated. I chose Canon because they seemed to have
less printhead/clog issues.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:BYmqd.5549$NU3.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints
are vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best
choice? When will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total
cost of a 13x19 print?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:11 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4Bnqd.178178$hj.958@fed1read07...
| Quote: | "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:BYmqd.5549$NU3.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice?
When will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
print?
Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no
direct competition from any other printer mfr? If you want longevity, the
Epson 2200 has no equal, but if you want speed of printing, the Canon is
the best. I think the Canon has better color, too, but that's my opinion
and only applies to what I do, not to any thing any one else does. One
advantage the Epson has over the Canon is its ability to do a better job
at B&W, and that's what may get me to buy one.
Cost of a 13x19 print varies according to what paper used, can be as low
as $2, easily getting to $4, and there's some paper my wife uses that runs
about $32 for a 36"x24" sheet, so the paper alone is about $16 for a
13x19.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
|
Because they now have R800 which brings some improvement over the 2200.
Considering 1280 is even older, Epson doesn't seem to be in the mood of
updating 2200 yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gene Palmiter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:BYmqd.5549$NU3.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
print?
|
I certainly hope its worthwhile. While reading this thread I discovered that
Epson had a printer that used 7 UltraChrome inks other than the 9600 and its
little brother....both of which are out of my range. So...a little research
to see if there were any problems with it I went looking for a price. Epson
has some factory referbs for $550...and its on its way!
So...yes...I think its worthwhile....UltraChromes don't fade in a
lifetime...Who says Canon is the best choice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PTRAVEL
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:16 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:BYmqd.5549$NU3.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
print?
|
I think it's worthwhile. Last year, I replaced my chemical color darkroom
with a Canon i9100 (the predecessor of the i9900) and a Canon 10D. The
results that I get are, for all intents and purposes, as good as what I got
out of my darkroom -- in some respects, even better because of the
additional control I have over the image. Note, however, that I've
calibrated my monitor, which makes a huge difference. My prints, which are
mounted behind glass, are on my walls at home and at the office. Some have
been up more than a year, with no sign of fading at all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:16 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> writes:
| Quote: | Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19 print?
|
For medium-sized art prints, it's very definitely worth printing at
home. Inkjet prints from the Epson Ultrachrome ink printers are more
stable than the best chromagenic photographic prints. The Canon i9900
is an interesting newcomer, but has never been a consensus best
choice. Given that Epson still sells the 3000, *MUCH* older, I don't
know why they'd want to replace the 2200 any time soon.
A 13x19 print costs more than I like. I've spent so much time using
bottled inks and continuous inkfeed systems that buying it by the
cartridge is really unattractive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:18 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> writes:
| Quote: | "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4Bnqd.178178$hj.958@fed1read07...
Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no
direct competition from any other printer mfr?
Because they now have R800 which brings some improvement over the 2200.
Considering 1280 is even older, Epson doesn't seem to be in the mood of
updating 2200 yet.
|
The R800 is interesting; the question has to be if the smaller
droplets are enough to make up for the lack of the light cyan and
light magenta inks. And the light black -- the 2200 B&W is one of the
big features.
The 2200, 4000, and R800 use three different sets of Ultrachrome inks,
and all get good results of their sort. It's interesting.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
william kossack
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:18 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
I was just looking at some of the larger format printers.
2 things stopped me
1) I was not sure my 5-6 megapixel camera would produce worthwhile
prints at such a size
2) The printer I settled on the i9900 was out of stock
I still debate the megapixel/size problem. Any info on this would be
appreciated
Skip M wrote:
| Quote: | "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:BYmqd.5549$NU3.2830@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
print?
Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no direct
competition from any other printer mfr? If you want longevity, the Epson
2200 has no equal, but if you want speed of printing, the Canon is the best.
I think the Canon has better color, too, but that's my opinion and only
applies to what I do, not to any thing any one else does. One advantage the
Epson has over the Canon is its ability to do a better job at B&W, and
that's what may get me to buy one.
Cost of a 13x19 print varies according to what paper used, can be as low as
$2, easily getting to $4, and there's some paper my wife uses that runs
about $32 for a 36"x24" sheet, so the paper alone is about $16 for a 13x19.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:09 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"william kossack" <wskossack@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MDtqd.579010$mD.434841@attbi_s02...
| Quote: | I was just looking at some of the larger format printers.
2 things stopped me
1) I was not sure my 5-6 megapixel camera would produce worthwhile prints
at such a size
2) The printer I settled on the i9900 was out of stock
I still debate the megapixel/size problem. Any info on this would be
appreciated
|
Depends. I had a Canon 300D [just sold] with 6MP. I print 12x18 at Costco
for $3. It doesn't have enough MP for closeup critique. Neverthless, the
rector proudly put the large pictures I took at the entrance of the church.
People love them. They can finally find themselves in the picture of a
cabaret/dinner I took from the balcony. I am upgrading to 20D, I might see
some marginal improvement in resolution.
The reason for me to get an inkjet is the possibility that I can produce a
more vibrant prints. My Epson R200 using Premium Glossy paper is vibrant but
when using ColorLife, the color's pretty muted. The Costco, Noritsu, prints
could use some punch too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Meissner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:09 am Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> writes:
| Quote: | Because they now have R800 which brings some improvement over the 2200.
Considering 1280 is even older, Epson doesn't seem to be in the mood of
updating 2200 yet.
|
Actually a wide printer based on the R800 has appeared in Japan recently, so
the betting in the printer forum of dpreview.com is it will be released to the
rest of the world in spring time.
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Savidge4
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:13 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
A little known option in the "Large Print" arena would be the HP CP 1700 ($500)
or the Designjet 30 ($700). I personally use the CP1700 in my office for color
proofing before going to my larger large format plotters. the CP1700 uses the
same ink set as many of HP's Large Format Plotters. yes they are dye ink
prints, but the Black is Pigment. One thing to consider though is with the use
of HP Glossy and or Matte Brochure and Flyer Paper you can expect your print to
last 72 years. The above mentioned paper is cheap as far as paper goes.. 50
sheets of 11x17 for $20. Not as thick as "Photo" paper, but who can tell how
thick the paper is if the print is behind a frame?
hope that helps! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Meissner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:52 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
savidge4@aol.com (Savidge4) writes:
| Quote: | A little known option in the "Large Print" arena would be the HP CP 1700
($500) or the Designjet 30 ($700). I personally use the CP1700 in my office
for color proofing before going to my larger large format plotters. the
CP1700 uses the same ink set as many of HP's Large Format Plotters. yes they
are dye ink prints, but the Black is Pigment. One thing to consider though
is with the use of HP Glossy and or Matte Brochure and Flyer Paper you can
expect your print to last 72 years. The above mentioned paper is cheap as
far as paper goes.. 50 sheets of 11x17 for $20. Not as thick as "Photo"
paper, but who can tell how thick the paper is if the print is behind a
frame?
|
I printed some calendars with HP glossy brochure paper last December using my
HP deskjet 6122 printer, and I've been noticing a color shift on some of the
prints. Of course calendars are exposed to the air and not behind glass (and
also you typically don't care if they don't last past a year). Even without
the color shift, I think Ilford Classic Pearl and Kodak Ultima Satin give
better colors (but are single sided papers). I didn't think it was a swellable
paper, but I could certainly be wrong....
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conrad Weiler
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:10 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
<< The Costco, Noritsu, prints
could use some punch too. >>
I use the Costco (Bend, Oregon) shop for my printing. 12x18's for $2.99 on Fuji
Crystal Archive paper (rated 66+ years) and done on a Noritsu printer (320
dpi). I'm happy to let dust collect on my three home printers (2 inkjets; 1
dye-sub).
Best,
Conrad
Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject:
Re: large print |
|
|
william kossack <wskossack@comcast.net> wrote in news:MDtqd.579010
$mD.434841@attbi_s02:
| Quote: | 1) I was not sure my 5-6 megapixel camera would produce worthwhile
prints at such a size
|
I've been doing some prints on a vintage HP plotter (750CM). It's fun. If
you get close to them, you can see printing artifacts in a major way, and
even pixels, but if you stand back you can't.
If you want large-format quality prints, then you need a LF camera.
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in