Sorting through foot acres of DVDs and CDs and filling up a 50 gallon trash can with them was cathartic. But in the process I also started looking at folders with personal/fun/art negatives and transparencies and I was struck by an instant desire to go back to printing the ones I consider to be most compelling and also sharable.
I am not a novice at inkjet printing; I've tossed enough money at the craft in the past equal to the amount needed to install a nice pool in the backyard or to at least buy a medium format Leica system. In the fog of the ancient past I had even converted an Epson 1280 printer completely to grayscale inks and actually got some good prints from it, in between clearing head clogs...
For some reason I can't remember right now I went out and bought an Epson 4000 printer that printed 17 inches wide by XXXXXX and, when it worked, the images coming out of it on nice paper were wonderful and delicious. But every single one of the half dozen Epson printers I bought and nursed had a fatal flaw. For every good print I got I gave away the same amount of ink in the next, routine head clog.
Didn't matter if I was using the printer everyday or just once a week. I tried raising the humidity in the office and lowering it. Nothing helped. I finally gave the Epson 4000 away to another photographer who seemed interested in martyrdom by ink cost. In truth I would have paid him to haul it away...
But I needed a printer for invoices (we now send them all out as email attached .pdfs) letters, and the occasional print-for-the-family. No client has requested anything printed in at least ten years. To fill the gap I bought a Canon Pro-100, 13 inch width capable printer and now, over seven years later, I have yet to experience my first head clog.
I have two issues with the Canon Pro-100; it uses dye based inks instead of pigment inks so the archival keeping is nothing like that of the pigmented prints. And....the black and white prints never come out as well as they did on that ancient Epson 4000. I'd like to buy a printer that does 13 inch wide prints, uses pigment inks and doesn't have more clogs in a year than bars have happy hours.
After a few days of research on the web (I'd been looking even before the big DVD purge...) I came across what seems to me to be the correct compromise. It's a Canon printer so my hope is that it will be equally clog resistant. It's the Canon Imagraf Pro-300. It uses Lucia pigmented inks and it's widely available for the cost of $899. It's even in stock at my local store so...no shipping costs.
I've read reviews and I've read specs but before I drop another $1K on what will most assuredly only be pertinent to my hobby side of photography I thought I should ask for whatever guidance you are willing to dole out to me. I'm not in a rush so write as slowly as you'd like.
Me? Right now? I'm going out for a walk (9:30 a.m.) before the day heats up and the sun blisters the graffiti right off the walls of the downtown buildings. It's going to be a week of scorching temperatures this week. Straight flush on +100°s with ample humidity tossed in to make it even cozier...
Kinda makes sense to spend time indoors this week futzing with printers and drivers and all that stuff.
Hope your week is off to a good start and wishing for all of you that the stock market recovers with vigor so we can use the proceeds to go out and buy more fun but ultimately useless stuff. I know I will.
26 comments:
I use a wide carriage Canon. Love it. I was so pissed off with Epson I almost took it out on the driveway and used an axe on it. I went through three of their best printers and spent more time trying to keep them unclogged than actually producing prints.
Eric
Kirk, how will you share those prints?
I wanted to go larger than 17 inches, so a half-dozen or more years ago I got a Canon 6400ipf. The only reason I could see NOT to get Canon was that everybody else had Epson. The most dominant reason TO get Canon was that the print heads are easily user replaceable, as easy as putting in new ink. So when a head gets clogged, you have a new one in a couple of days and plug it in. They don't give the heads away but I've never minded the cost. The second reason was that it was significantly smaller overall than the equivalent Epson and this has to live in my apartment, there's no studio. The tech support, when needed, has been terrific and the thing has been an absolute workhorse. Couldn't be happier. It takes sheets from 8x10 up but I generally switch back and forth between 17 and 24 inch rolls. My "test strips" are 8.5 x 17. You might not want to think about 24 inch but with a Fuji 50S, it's a great life.
My only gripes regarding Canon's Pro-10 (pigmented inks) have to do with it's size and heft. Despite dry climate and only intermittent use, the most maintenance that I've needed to do is to periodically dust it.
Have not printed b&w extensively, but what I did do looked beyond reproach: I saw not the slightest unwanted color cast, funky oily / metallic sheen or crushed low tonal values.
Screen, printer and papers are profiled using Xrite's i1Studio, I've got Lightroom's print module set for +10 Brightness and +10 Contrast, and from there, it's pretty much click-and-print, with any faults generally being user error.
Jeff in Colorado
I have an Epson P800, the best printer I've had to date, but the previous Epson, the 3880 died after four years. Before that was a Canon, which was OK but a dye printer.
The next printer will be a Canon, epecially since the P800 replacement, the P900, has smaller ink tanks - how ridiculous!
Keith Cooper at Northlight Images does excellent printer, (and other), real world reviews.
Review:
https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
Print settings:
https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
+1 on the Canon Pixma Pro 100. I went through all the Epson frustrations for waaay too long. NEVER again. I've had my Pro 100 since trhey cam out and it's a workhorse. If it dies tomorrow, I'd replace it but I'd consider a wider version. As far as print live is concerned, they are now avertising that the Chromalife 100+ inks are good for archival storage up to 300 years. At age 70+ that's not an issue for us, but it never really was. I retain digital copies and if a pront were to fade (and none have) i would repront it.
Good luck and enjoy the printing. It brings me as much joy as the image capture, but more of a solirary enjoyment.
John
I’m using an Epson 3880, which I bought in 2014 to replace my 3800 (bought in 2007) which had developed a leak somewhere. This line of printers has proven to be very reliable and about as economical to use as it gets for a photo printer.
I’m not sure what I’d get to replace it, given the significantly smaller ink tanks of the P900. The P900 does eliminate the Matte/Photo Black ink swap though.
I have an Epson 3800 that I bought new. Sometimes I don't print anything for 2 months. I have never had any issue with clogs.
Hmmm. Maybe I'm not using it enough
Oops, I see that you’re looking for a 13” printer. I won’t even consider a smaller printer anymore, as the 17” size is much more economical to run. I’m comparing to the Epson 1270 and R1800 that I had before the 3800.
I have an Epson P800. It replaced an ancient 3800. Never a clog yet and, with Imageprint RIP it makes lovely prints. That said, I am sure the equivalent Canon would suit you fine.
I have an amateur level Canon, after using three higher-end Epsons years ago. I have no patience for clog fights or fiddling with machines. The current printer, a Canon 6220, will do dye prints up to 8.5x11, I believe, though I don't usually go that big. In fact, I don't usually go at all; I don't think I've printed anything in a year, or longer. There's a photo shop here in Santa Fe and you can take your image to them on a flash drive and get the print back almost immediately. I know that printing is a thing, and that people who want to print want to print, but I don't think that a careful financial analysis would suggest that there's a large benefit to home printing -- certainly not as sporadically as I do it. An aesthetic analysis might show a benefit to do it yourself, but I'm not even sure of that, at least, not with my printing abilities.
Printers are definitely a fraught subject. I print for exhibit more than I post and I've used wide-format HP, Epson and Canon printers.
Last August, I had to replace an Epson 7900 that failed due to an uncorrectable a few days before the date to hang an exhibit. The Vivid Magenta channel failed, although all other channels worked properly - result, no accurate colors nor accurate B+W.
It was less expensive to totally replace that 2-generation old Epson than to replace the all-color 11-channel head ($2,000 just for the repair parts plus the cost of flying in a repair technician for a day). The only useful information that I could find on the Internet showed the owner of a professional shop explaining how he had already replaced several expensive Epson 7900 heads only to have the replacements die. As a fitting conclusion, he produced a 16-pound sledge hammer and gave that 7900 the coup d'grace.
Rather than trash mine, I gave it to an engineering shop whose wide-format HP had died - engineering line drawings really don't care whether the color is Pantone-accurate, so long as the lines and the legend match.
Both the smaller 17x22/25 Epson P-800 that I use for sheets is reasonably resistant to head clogs and those head clogs that form clear quickly. The replacement Epson 7570 for large roll prints seem to resist head clogs very well. As upkeep, I run a nozzle check weekly on the 7570 and have never had a clog, so far. Print quality is excellent.
Epson P900 is out of this world. Way way easier and pleasant to use than the P800 I used to own. Highly recommended.
Best printer I know. No clogs No alignment no color profiles no ink to speak of. https://www.mpix.com/
Both dye and pigment will likely outlast us, so I don't see that as a big deal. Depending on how often you'll actually make prints, consider sticking with the tried and true Canon Pro-100, proof on that, and outsource to a pro lab. Local if you have such a thing, online such as WHCC or Miller's/Mpix if you don't. Lots of good fine art paper options plus canvas or metal.
I had a Canon iPF5100 (17") for a couple of years. It was very economical until it came time to start replacing ink (12 colors at ~$90 each and print heads ~2@$400 each.
For at home printing I’ve gone the Fujifilm Instax Square device and will most likely get the new Wide version too. All larger print sizes I’ve sent out to my local printer or ,as the wife does, an online place for the more oddball stuff.
If cost of inks is your primary concern then I can recommend the Epson EcoTank printers. I have had one for a couple of years (mostly office printing, a few photos) and have only bought a couple of bottles of ink that time, which has been very cost-effective. My previous Epson printer just drank ink at great expense to me.
They do photo versions of the EcoTank, not sure whether the print quality would suit you, but I'm sure that the cost would.
Printing at home in 2022? What next, DIY dentistry? Back yard animal husbandry? Farm that out to one of the many online providers. Who wants to mess about with printers and ink?
crsantin: yes, I want to mess about with printers and ink. Printing is what gives me the most joy in photography and it wouldn't be the same if I farmed it out.
To answer Kirk: I fought the Epson clogs for a lot of years before switching to Canon. I've had the Pro-10 for several years now, and not a clog ever. It just prints and prints with excellent output. Also, Canon's plug-in, Print Studio Pro, is far better than printing directly from Photoshop. The new imagePROGRAF 300 is of course the Pro-10 replacement for a pigment-based 13" printer, or the 1000 if you want 17" wide. Can't go wrong with either.
Dick
Epson P900! No clogging in dry-as-dust Arizona climate, very reliable and accurate. Canons ok but I hated the extensive head cleaning routine every timeI turned it on.
I have always used Epson printers. I had occasional ink clog problems with their dye inks but never with the pigment ink printers I've owned (currently a P2880). What I have had problems with is paper handling. Paper skewed crooked on the last inch on the prior model and the P2880 has an annoying habit of frequently shooting the paper straight through without printing and then giving me a "paper feed" message. Sometimes it does that 2-3 times in a row before condescending to make the print. Aside from that and having to switch between matte & gloss black inks I love the quality of the prints that it makes.
I used an Epson 3880 for 9 years until it died, and replaced it with a P900 a few months ago. I am mostly happy with it although it has had a few glitches which, with Epson's help. and a software upgrade, seem to have been solved. I have an ongoing weekly project requiring 30-40 prints (8 12/ X 11, half B&W, half color) on a tight schedule, and so far, so good. Yes the cartridges are smaller, but they are also less expensive. I would buy again.
Hi Kirk:
Amazing blog, and long time follower.
After 14+ years with Epsons and doing the clogging dance, went Canon (ProGraf 2000) with Ink Owl inks about 5 years ago. Incredible price-performance, these inks and highly recommended.You can shift to these (third party) inks one at a time without any visual changes over OEM. Durability is equivalent. Less than half the cost (remember: inkjet printers are vampires).
Have yet to have a clog.
I’m a professional small and private school photographer, so lots of prints over a short, seasonal time period. Epson is a more cost-effective proposition when run continuously, but Canon has it for start / stop printing, such as for hobbyists. Overall, less maintenance, except for the dastardly print head.
I got tired of having to “exercise the printers constantly between seasons, and Canons are always ready to rock and roll.
Also, the clear coat greatly reduces gloss differential. Only some Epsons have this cart.
Happy researching!
—Josh
I use an Epson P600 - really good prints and astonishing immunity to head clogs - so far at least, and it often doesn't get used for months. I use original inks though, which cost a fortune.
My Epson R3000 gave up last summer and I eventually replaced it with a new P700. It's wonderful. I can't really tell the difference between the prints from the R3000 to the P700 but the P700 doesn't seem to mind being left unused for a month or two at a time. The R3000 would require several cleaning cycles to clear print nozzles after just two weeks or so. I realized yesterday it had been almost two months since I used the P700 so I printed a couple of photos. No problem whatsoever.
The downside. It's slooooow in setting up the print. The message that keeps refraining is "Please wait". And I ain't that patient these days. Also, when Epson did an update it changed my settings and it took me half a day to figure out why I couldn't get the thing to work. I'm now suspicious that my R3000 didn't really die on me but it's possible an Epson update cleared my settings and I didn't realize it. I always use the same papers with the same settings and anything outside these parameters throws me off kilter.
I'm happy with Epson photo printer quality. I've only used an HP in the past and Epsons are much better. Canon probably does great too but I'm set in my ways of doing things and I don't wanna relearn how to do the process. That's why I still use Lightroom, Nikons and Fujis--familiarity.
My former job had me managing a lab of 20 computers and inkjet printers in a higher education setting. Initially, they were Canon 9000 series pigment printers and HP larger format. Eventually, they became Epson P800 and 24 and 44 inch printers. In general everything worked well when they are all printing on the same surface and printing regularly. Unexplainable smudging would happen when the P800 would go from transparency, matt to luster. Some did this more than others. When the 7800 developed a clog in one of the grays, replacing the print head didn't fix it. The tech sent information up the chain to Epson and their response was this is within the acceptable margins. At that point, I was done with Epson. I ran into a similar situation with a 7800 in my new job. The printer was replaced with Canon PRO-300. We have since added a second one. Yes, the ink tanks are small. The prints are goood. If I am comparing a black and white print from an Epson, they are a bit different, but if I didn't compare them I would be happy with it. The nicer the paper, the better the print. If I were buying a printer for myself, I would buy one of those Canons.
Post a Comment