How good are the sub $ 500 printers?

[Meleica]

I have been printing out very nice 8.5x11 inch prints on a 4 color $ 150 HP photo printer the past year or so. The files are processed RAW shots - nothing really from scans.

However, whenever I need a very "high quality" 8x10 or 16 x20 inch print, I usually use MPIX. My question is this..... just how good are theses 13x19 printers from Canon and Epson in the $ 350-500 price range ? Should I just continue to use my HP for proof prints and then on the fairly rare occasion I want the highest quality 8x10 or 16 x20 use MPIX ? Thoughts ?

thanks
Dan

 

[furcafe]

Not sure what MPIX is, but I've been able to get exhibition quality prints in the 11x14" to 13x19" range w/my Epson 2200 &, before that, the old 1280 (when the original scans/digital files have been of sufficient quality, of course). I think the technology has progressed to the point that the file, inks, & paper used are the limiting factors, not the printer per se.

I have been printing out very nice 8.5x11 inch prints on a 4 color $ 150 HP photo printer the past year or so. The files are processed RAW shots - nothing really from scans.

However, whenever I need a very "high quality" 8x10 or 16 x20 inch print, I usually use MPIX. My question is this..... just how good are theses 13x19 printers from Canon and Epson in the $ 350-500 price range ? Should I just continue to use my HP for proof prints and then on the fairly rare occasion I want the highest quality 8x10 or 16 x20 use MPIX ? Thoughts ?

thanks
Dan

 

[VinceC]

I think the technology has progressed to the point that the file, inks, & paper used are the limiting factors, not the printer per se.


Longevity has been an issue for me. I was getting high quality prints out of Canon 6-ink printers, but persistance has been a big problem. Some test prints of B&W on Canon Photo Paper Pro under a nonstop flourescent office light have faded and shifted to deep green over the past 20 months. I recently bought a new Epson R-series with Claria inks. Prints are indistinguishable from wet darkroom and are "supposed" to have logevity measured in decades, not seaons. We'll see.

For the most part, 8x10 printers are free ... they cost about as much as the ink cartidges they ship with. You do have to pay more for the larger format printers.

 

[35mmdelux]

ck out the Photosmart series of printers. I think my 8750 prints up to 13x19. Cost $350. Learn how to use all the software and should kick out some good prints.

 

[furcafe]

I share your concerns about longevity. FWIW, I've seen "naked" (unframed, unmatted) inkjet prints, even those made w/pigment B&W inks & "archival" paper, shift color & fade under the lighting in my office (some sort of broad spectrum fluorescent) in a matter of weeks. However, I haven't seen any such effects on prints that were actually framed w/glass or plexiglass after several years, even those that are regularly exposed to window light.

I think the technology has progressed to the point that the file, inks, & paper used are the limiting factors, not the printer per se.


Longevity has been an issue for me. I was getting high quality prints out of Canon 6-ink printers, but persistance has been a big problem. Some test prints of B&W on Canon Photo Paper Pro under a nonstop flourescent office light have faded and shifted to deep green over the past 20 months. I recently bought a new Epson R-series with Claria inks. Prints are indistinguishable from wet darkroom and are "supposed" to have logevity measured in decades, not seaons. We'll see.

For the most part, 8x10 printers are free ... they cost about as much as the ink cartidges they ship with. You do have to pay more for the larger format printers.

 

[Robert Price]

I use a hp photosmart 7960 and have had great results with my photos so far. I have some that are going on ten years old and still look great. Of course i use hp ink and their paper too. I also print from quite large files and always use the highest settings for my printer too.

I have thought of buying a larger printer also but if I do need larger prints i have then done by a pro.

 

[keithwms]

I can tell you this. I got a refurb R800 from epson, it was ~$350 as I recall and came with free shipping. Put in the standard inkset, used epson premium lustre paper... pow! Way better than store-bought prints. In fact, the prints truly rival or exceed lightjet- better for many of us just because of the papers that are available.

I honestly do not like most of the matte pigment ink output that I've seen but I hear that the Hahnemuehle papers are very good. But for lustre and such, the epsons are superb. Also, since you can print on roll paper, you can save a bundle on paper. With roll paper, you can get lovely pano images that would cost a small fortune.

I also started making digital negs with the r800 on pictorico stuff, for traditional b&w contact printing, and I am very impressed so far.

P.S. Concerning longevity, forget it. In the worst case you can spray with Uv-protective krylon. But the epson pigment inks on premium papers are already rated around 50 years, I am not sure what more one could reaosnably want with colour output. Now for b&w that is a different story! I remain stodgily traditional for b&w.

 

[JNewell]

I have been looking at the refurb Epson 1280 and R800 and would be very interested in comments here on use for B&W and color!

 

[keithwms]

JNewell, I like the epson R800 for b&w and colour, but I still do my b&w stuff traditionally because I prefer matte fiber and toning and all that. But as I just mentioned, I make digital negs on the R800 for traditonal prinintg and those are super. I have seen some "alternative" (cyanotype/gum/platinum etc.) monochrome work done that way which really is as good as it gets.

If you like glossy or lustre then the epsons will not disappoint- colour or b&w. For matte, well, the jury is out. I personally do not like inkjet matte.

The only negative regarding the epsons is that the inksets are pricey!

 

[wray]

I'm going to go against the grain here. I own both an Epson R-1800 (the 800's big brother) and an HP 8450 (the 8750's little brother). The Epson is not good for B&W as it exhibits both bronzing and meterism depending on the viewing light source. Although, you can get a rip for it that does good B&W, it's restricted to using matte papers. The HP does a credible job with with B&W but when its prints are dry they remain pervious to moisture - obviously not a problem when mounted under glass and framed. For a little over $500 you can get a refurbished Epson 2400 which will do great color as well as B&W. Personally, my next printer will be an HP B9180. Unfortunately it exceeds your $500 price point.