[JohnR]

I've decided that the next step in my photographic journey should (probably) be to get a good printer. The Epson 3800 seems right on the mark - archival inks, grey inks for B&W prints, matt+gloss blacks, and as big as I would ever want to print. Quite a bit more $ than I would really want to spend on a printer, but it has big tanks, so...

I've been promising people I would give them prints, and I haven't. It's a problem...

This thread here seems pretty positive about the Epson: http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=178211. I'm figuring that a couple of 4x6s each weekend will keep the heads from getting clogged. (Anyone with experience here?)

Suggestions for specific alternatives from Canon, HP, etc would be welcome

[drphoto]

I've had an Epi 1280, and currently a 4000. They do a fantastic job w/ photos, but are dog slow and the heads clog like crazy. I would say a couple of prints on the weekend would NOT be enough. I'd run a sheet of plain paper through every other day to be safe. Believe me, you waste far less ink doing this, than running cleaning cycles.

One way to get your ink cost down, is to use the refillable carts from inksupply.com. They make various systems depending on the printer model. Even if you want to stick w/ factory ink, they have downloadable purging patterns that are great for the above mentioned maintanence. The advantage of factory ink, is that the current Epi's stock profiles are very good. The 4000 was the first printer I'd seen that could do a decent greyscale image out of the box. Going to aftermarket ink requires some fiddling. Their ultrachrome equivilent is close to, but not an exact duplicate of the factory ink

[nathanm]

I have the Epson 7880 and it's great, but if I had it to do over I would get an HP.  That is, if the model had the built-in profiling feature.  I am not sure if the smaller desktop models have that or not. Being able to make custom profiles for different papers would be sweet.  Plus there's the replaceable head argument.  And Epson's Photo\Matte black ink swap thing is a load of crap.  Why we put up with such silliness I don't understand.   

Epson's Automatic Black & White mode is quite good.  I have no complaints about that.  A neutral setting really is neutral on most papers.  Harman's Gloss FB baryta paper is the most photo-like surface I've used, but dang pricey.

[geezer]

I've had a Canon for maybe four years (i960 with six ink tanks). I've had cases when I didn't print anything for three or four years, and have never had a clog. Photos printed on Canon paper are beautiful.

Edit: That should have been "three or four months" of course.

[JohnR]

Awesome, thanks for the info, guys. I will try and find out what the current HP and Canon equivalents are.

Nathan, if I got an Epson 3800 from here they offer custom ICC profiles for specific papers. You have to pay for each one but at least the option is there.

Thanks for the recommendation (?) on the Harman Baryta paper. Even here it is $2 per A4 sheet (if you buy 50) - that actually doesn't seem too bad to me, considering that an 8x10 print at a pro place will cost me $7.50 and at least an hour driving

Do you have other paper recommendations? Are you using the Baryta Gloss for B&W?

JohnR

[nathanm]

You will usually get excellent results if you stick with the factory paper.  They're all dialed in for those.  The factory has done all the hard work for you.  When you switch to 3rd party papers you are going to have less tight tolerances.  The paper maker will usually give you a profile, but it probably won't be as fine tuned as you might like.  I started off using a roll of Epson Semigloss and although I'm not too crazy about the surface the color was dead nuts from the get go.  I just dialed back the overall ink density and it was great.  The most sensible route is to use factory paper, if you can avoid the temptation to try others of course!

Black and whites look excellent on the Harman paper, color is so-so, but I am biased because I hate my color photos anyway.  I've switched over to Matte Black ink and matte papers on my printer because I like prints that don't have glare.  But you sacrifice DMAX, though.  Lately I've been using Aurora Fine Art Natural from redriverpaper.com  Sweet prices!

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/auroranatural.html

The name I read about most often from pros who print on matte is Hanemhule Photo Rag.  Again, nice but costly.  I have only used a few sample pack sheets, though.  At the end of the day, if you want ultimate image performance you have to use gloss papers\films.  It will be sharper, more saturated, wider tonal range and better DMAX.  You pay for all this greatness by seeing your windows, lamps and maybe yourself in every print.  (unless you frame and light the print properly in a darkened room)  It's the equivalent of an electrostatic panel speaker I would imagine; excellent sound but so very beamy and directional.

[mcullinan]

Heres a good resource.
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Menus/reviews.htm

I havent bought a new printer yet... Im waiting to see whats around the corner. Ive seen the Canon Pro 9000 output and its pretty sweet if a lil saturated. Canon came out with the 9500, but there is a 100 rebate and you can pick up the Canon 9000 for 320 bucks.. which is a sick price.
Mike

[JohnR]

I finally had some time to do some research (!). At this point I am leaning towards the Epson 2880 over the 3800 because -

• I've decided I don't need more than A3+ (13x19") capability. Anything larger I will send out.
• It has the latest "vivid" K3 inkset, which gives it a larger color gamut. Not sure if I care about this, but anyway...
• It has apparently improved some minor issues with rollers and paper handling.
• It might have less bronzing on gloss papers.
• It supports roll feed, which might be useful if I ever decided to print an enormous panorama...
• The cost of entry is 60% that of the 3800 (i.e. $700 cheaper for me). Most of that is the value of the ink though - see below.

On the down side:

• Still loses ink switching between matt and glossy black.
• Per ml, ink costs about 50-60% more.
• Smaller tanks, meaning more hassle with cartridge swaps.

A lot of the differences here come down to ink cartridge size and cost. I have read that the 3800 uses around 2ml of ink per square foot, on average (for photo printing). Assuming the 2880 has a similar rate of ink usage, that is around 74  8x12s or 33  12x18s per set of cartridges. The 3800 would, however, take 540  8x12s or 240  12x18s to fully use of a set of cartridges (assuming equal usage from all tanks). Given Epson's recommendation of using the ink within six months of opening, and making a wild guess about my printing output, the big tanks of the 3800 would be way past their use-by date by the time I emptied them. So I feel I may as well accept a higher per-print cost to avoid the risk of not using the ink in a reasonable time, and anyway it is still cheaper than getting it done commercially.

On that basis, I figure that a 12x18 costs about $5 in ink on a 2880, and around $2.50 for Epson paper. So that is $7.50 compared to $15 for basic "pro" commercial printing on Fuji Crystal Archive. If I use fancy paper like Crane Silver Rag, that goes up to $11. Still cheaper. (And a lot quicker and more convenient.)

In short, the 2880 has a lower cost of entry but higher running (ink) costs, but my relatively low output rate probably makes it the best choice for me.

On the issue of losing ink when switching between gloss and matt black. I figure the simple solution here is to stick with the gloss ink on satin or fiber paper. I may try matt papers at some point, but it will likely be for times when I have scanned and worked a bunch of B&W negs, when I won't mind the cost of the switch.

On HP and Canon, the equivalent Canon offering seems to be the 9500. I haven't had time to really look into it, but compared to the Epson, it has one grey ink whereas the Epson has two. The Epsons are consistently given high marks for B&W prints, which is important to me. Anyway, further investigation is warranted.

I haven't figured out what the equivalent HP offering is, nobody here seems to sell it, whatever it is

PS. If the $ figures look off to you, it's because they are in Australian dollars and prices.