Canon i9900 printer for b&w enlargements?

Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 6 Location: Atlanta, GA

Hoping this is an appropriate place for this question:

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with photo printers that produce great black and white enlargements. I'm looking to print 5x7's and 8x10's almost exclusively but would also like the capability of printing larger. I've recently upgraded some of my equipment and am looking to be able to print my fine art nudes. Currently the Canon i9900 is looking like a strong contender.

Anyone have any words to the wise about this or other photo printing equipment you use?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:57 pm

Out of the box inkjet printers do not produce good B&W prints, they were really never designed to. I have spent alot of time and money experimenting with B&W using inkjet printers.

I currently use an older Epson 1270 (13x19) using MIS Ebony Black ink only.

Here are some good links with more information:

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
http://www.inksupply.com/bwpage.cfm

Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 6 Location: Atlanta, GA

One of my concerns with the Epsons is that they do not have separate ink tanks for color inks. I also print color on occasion and wanted a good multipurpose printer that could do both if called upon to do so. Mostly, yes, it'll be black and white, but the advantage I saw to the Canon line was that replacement inks are available for each individual tank, of which there are 8, I believe.

Another concern with the Epson is that I have read reviews that say they are notorious for printhead jams/failure and often need replacement. I have an HP right now that required two of its four printheads replaced and it cost upwards of $80 to do so. Very expensive; very frustrating. I'm trying to avoid this problem in future.

I'm also impressed with Canon's innovation as relates to their digital photo technology, dollar for dollar. I recently bought the Rebel XT and had a notion that the Canon printer would integrate seamlessly with the camera technology, though I'm still in research mode about this...

Have you (or anyone else) heard anything about Canon printing technology? One of the articles you recommended mentioned that Canon and HP were coming out with new technology that would rival the Epsons, but didn't go into details. You've opened my eyes a bit to the Epsons, but I'm not entirely willing to give up the good fight for the Canon yet. I'm still making notes and sifting through.

What a treasure trove of information here! Thanks for the contribution, especially of those articles. I've got a lot more to go on now in making this decision.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:28 am

wirefly wrote:

One of my concerns with the Epsons is that they do not have separate ink tanks for color inks.

The newer Epson's have separate ink tanks. I have yet to have a print head fail, leak, jam, or clog on my 1270 or R200 Epson's after years of service (I have been using my 1270 for about 6 years now).

I do have some experience with Canon printers; I use an older S9000 for my color work. Canon makes a nice printer with good output but as I said before the B&W output out of the box is not good. The use of third party inks helped improve this greatly. The basic facts are if you’re going to be doing B&W inkjet work you’re A. going to have to dedicate a printer to it and B. you’re going to be using third party inks or black ink only.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:41 pm

Hi - As Chris wrote: For printing BW you really need specialised BW inks as a replacement for the original cartridges. The best option here seems to be Epson printers, because you have the widest choice of BW ink sets. HP is served poorly, not the least, because the really good HP photo printers all use these tiny 3-colour cartridges, no single inks.

I can't say, because I never really investigated, whether the typical BW ink sets (Lyson and Co.) are available for that Canon modell. For colour printing I would not use Canon, because their prints seem to be the least fade resistant ones. HP and Epson, both, are much better in terms of longevity.

One way, which improves BW printing with the standard colour ink sets is, to print tinted prints (sepia, or duotones). These are much smoother, than neutral BW prints.

regards, René

Joined: 18 Dec 2004 Posts: 661 Location: manchester, uk

I've had experience with a bunch of Epson 2200s and a Canon i9900. The 2200 printed black and whites with warm tones almost reaching a sepia (yes they were being printed with the correct settings) but the i9900 had more neutral tones.

Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 1814

wirefly wrote:

. I have an HP right now that required two of its four printheads replaced and it cost upwards of $80 to do so. Very expensive; very frustrating. I'm trying to avoid this problem in future.

The HP print technology replaces the print heads every-time you replace the ink cartridge, I think that this is also true for Canon and Lexmark. Epson on the other hand has permanent print-heads and they are quite expensive to replace, I chose to replace the printer. I had two Epson printers fail because of print-head problems the tech told me it was because I printed a lot of labels which are thicker than regular paper and the resulting friction caused wear on the print-head and he suggested buying a printer from HP since each ink replacement gives you a new print-head. Since switching I have had no more print-head problems but now I have 2 printers that are five years out of date so you really can't win.

Gerhard

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:37 am

Gerhard wrote:

wirefly wrote:

. I have an HP right now that required two of its four printheads replaced and it cost upwards of $80 to do so. Very expensive; very frustrating. I'm trying to avoid this problem in future.

The HP print technology replaces the print heads every-time you replace the ink cartridge, I think that this is also true for Canon and Lexmark. Epson on the other hand has permanent print-heads and they are quite expensive to replace, I chose to replace the printer. I had two Epson printers fail because of print-head problems the tech told me it was because I printed a lot of labels which are thicker than regular paper and the resulting friction caused wear on the print-head and he suggested buying a printer from HP since each ink replacement gives you a new print-head. Since switching I have had no more print-head problems but now I have 2 printers that are five years out of date so you really can't win.
Gerhard

Gerhard, there are also some HP models with permanent print heads, i.e. the Business Inkjet series and of course the large format printers of the Designjet series. Anyway, even with those the printhead replacement is much cheaper than with Epson, because HP's permanent print heads are meant to be replaced every couple of used ink tanks, whereas Epson wants us to buy a new printer all the time.

regards, René

Premium Member Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 2020

I would like to mention here that once again, ChrisL is dead on balls right.

Rather than believe a person who clearly has about 10,000 time my experience in B&W photography and printing, I was convinced that my printer did a pretty good job of B&W printing. After all I've printed B&W stuff from it and it looked okay.

Then I had a couple of my B&W shots printed professionally. (No doubt which also fall short somehow..) I then compared my home prints and the pros....

NOT EVEN CLOSE. Holy crap...

Now, I know that the experienced photogs around here already know what I'm talking about. But there are bound to be a few people like me who simply had no clue.

My digital breathren,

Do yourselves a favor. Pick a couple of your favorite B&W conversions and have them printed professionally. You will be amazed at the difference.

Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 6 Location: Atlanta, GA

Okay, so based on what withnosocks said about print quality and tone, it sounds like the Canon might work, except that, according to Gerhard, there is the same issue with printhead issue with Canons that there is with my current HP. I am also looking at the Epson 1280, but I'm not convinced of anything yet. In fact, I'm feeling clearer now on the points I was fuzzy on originally, but hey! Look at that! There's a whole new set of considerations that I wasn't even aware of... Isn't it always the way?

From what everyone here is saying, particularly ChrisL and SingleMalt, it seems that there is no good solution to getting a truly great (and certainly archival) grade of print other than to have things professionally printed.

So questions: Does no one print at home if they do black and white? Do you ever show things that you've printed at home? Do you ever SELL things that you've printed at home???

My dilemma remains, but I have more information. Thanks for a helpful discussion.

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:03 pm

I print B&W at home all the time but what I was trying to get across is your going to need to devote some time and money getting the print quality right. This means devoting a printer to just B&W, using third party inks, calibrating your system and making a lot of proof prints. Having your work printed professionally is also an option.

This is how I do my prints at home; I produce a proof print on the inkjet that is exactly how I want the final prints to look. I then take that proof to my lab and tell them to match the print quality. When I am printing images for an exhibition I will print all my work at home, this way I have total control over the image. When I am making prints for sale at a galley or such then I do the proof print routine. I will sell inkjet prints but I add an information sheet on the care and handling of the image.

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:07 am

Quote:

I will sell inkjet prints but I add an information sheet on the care and handling of the image.

do they need much care Chris? I'm about to invest in my first printer!