Which printer do you guys use?

Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 166 Location: New York

Hello everyone,

I am currently printing on an Epson 1270 and am thinking about buying a new printer for two reasons:

1. I would like to be able to print wider than 13".

2. I hear that there are lots of new archival inks out, which are much more fade resistant.

I bought this printer ca. 5 or 6 years ago new for $370 and thought that with the rapid digital deflation, I would be able to find a higher quality printer for around $500. But a sales clerk at B&H (who are usually very knowledgable) could only suggest another Epson - forgot the model number - for around $700 and print width was still limited to 13". I don't even want to go much bigger, but I would like to be able to print, say, 16"x20".

Does anyone have a suggestion for me? Overall I am happy with my Epson 1270, and my limit is really $500. If I can get something MUCH better, up to $700 is doable. Or should I just stick with my old Epson?

Let me know what you think,
Q.

P.S. - oh, I want to get a new flatbed scanner too, am currently using an Agfa Snapscan 1236, which used to be great but something happened to the sensor. Since I have a film scanner, I am not using it that often and am satisfied with the somewhat outdated resolution of 600x1200, but I really liked the scannning software and the color reproduction. Any suggestions there? I am mainly using it to scan and restore old snapshots for which the negs don't exist anymore.

Joined: 16 Jan 2005 Posts: 195 Location: Erie, PA USA

How many big prints are you going to make? The reason I ask is that you might be better off outsourcing your larger prints to a prolab.

After looking at the cost of paper and ink, I hardly ever do any of my own printing anymore since it is cheaper just to upload and pick up locally, or have them mailed to me from a place like Mpix.com

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:49 pm

Wow......... 17 inch width for $500 is tough.

You need to go to one of Epson's pigment systems. There are two. Both are archival.

One is the Ultrachrome ink set. This came with the Epson 2200, 4000, 7600 and 9600 printers. This is archival and the prints are excellent. I love my 2200 and I have been using it for about 3 years now with no problems of any kind.

The K3 ink set is the new version. This comes in the R2400, 4800, 7800 and 9800. They have a wider gamut (it was pretty large as it was before) and they print better B&W.

In that $500 price range.......you might find a new Stylus Photo 2200. Since it is discontinued you'll be close to that price. Maybe a bit higher. If you must go wider, the Epson 4000 is the way to go but I can't imagine, even being discontinued, that you'll find that one for less than $1200 to 1300.

The 17 inch and wider Epson's are a bit more expensive. They are branded as "Pro" series vs. the "Photo" series and are made on different assmebly lines. There is far more attention to the detail and they undergo far more rigorous inspection and calibration. These are made to last a great deal of time under heavy workloads. So for $500, I doubt it.

Your only possibility for wide printers at 17" might be a used printer.

Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 166 Location: New York

Thanks for the input. I guess I'll have to save up some more, had no idea that printing wider is getting so much more expensive. Luisv, thanks for the info on the inks. I had read that in some article and couldn't remember the details of what and who.

Wally - good idea, I hadn't even thought about that. I checked Mpix, Shutterfly and Kodak, 16" x 20" will still run me about $18 per print, but since it doesn't look like I am getting a new printer anytime soon, it's a good solution in the meantime. And you're right, I am not planning to print a ton of them.

Great site, always good info!

Thanks again,
Q.

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:45 am

Try White House Custom Color or the Print Room...16x20s are $15 or less.

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:59 pm

BTW the print costs are FAR cheaper when printing in house than printing out.

Assuming an Epson Stylus 2200:

A Color 8x10 print on Epson Premium Lustre will run you 90¢ a print! This is far less than the price you'd pay at just about any site.

As a rule of thumb, you can take the price to be ABOUT (please note I stress the "ABOUT") $1.75 per square foot. So a 16x20 (cannot be done on the 2200, I know) print would hover in the $4.00 price range. The big savings come with the large prints.

These prices are even lower for the 4000, 7000 and 9000 series printers because the ink is bought in larger amounts. So the price drops further.

These are real world figures, printing a mix of B&W and Color. They are based on my ink and media costs over the course of a few hundred prints to get a good average. Before anybody asks..... I did it to determine my cost per print in the business.

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:13 am

luisv wrote:

BTW the print costs are FAR cheaper when printing in house than printing out.

Assuming an Epson Stylus 2200:

A Color 8x10 print on Epson Premium Lustre will run you 90¢ a print! This is far less than the price you'd pay at just about any site.

As a rule of thumb, you can take the price to be ABOUT (please note I stress the "ABOUT") $1.75 per square foot. So a 16x20 (cannot be done on the 2200, I know) print would hover in the $4.00 price range. The big savings come with the large prints.

These prices are even lower for the 4000, 7000 and 9000 series printers because the ink is bought in larger amounts. So the price drops further.
.

As a rule of thumb: the bigger the printer, the lower the costs per print. BUT you have to consider initial purchase costs as well. If you only print ten or 20 sheets per month, the purchase costs over an expected lifetime of 3 or 4 years drive the cost per print higher.

So, our rule of thumb is only valid, if you really have a high throughput on those large format printers. All the numbers given by the manufactureres on the "total cost of ownership" are based on high print volumes and are still somewhat "optimistic". For anyybody prinitng only a few large format prints over the year, going to a good print shop is the better and cheaper option, not the least, because you don't have to pay for test prints etc...

regards
René

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 193 Location: Bronx

Quote:

The K3 ink set is the new version. This comes in the R2400, 4800, 7800 and 9800. They have a wider gamut (it was pretty large as it was before) and they print better B&W.

Is that the set that pantone made for the 9600?

I know they came out with a set of inks with a tremendous gamut and less matamerism. May be worth looking into if your going to go with an epson.

Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 25 Location: Kansas City

Another question would be is it a better Idea to go with a Dye-Sublimation printer such as the Kodak Professional 1400? How many pages can you get per ribbon ect? Is it always a better quality print than inkjet? how do I determine a cost per sheet ratio between these different printers?

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:46 pm

RMDesinz wrote:

Another question would be is it a better Idea to go with a Dye-Sublimation printer such as the Kodak Professional 1400? How many pages can you get per ribbon ect? Is it always a better quality print than inkjet? how do I determine a cost per sheet ratio between these different printers?

The cost per sheet can only be calculated individually, taking into account:
- lifespan of the printer or time for writing the printer off
- spreading the purchase cost over the number of prints during this expected lifespan
- actual consumables cost per print, which is dependend on your preferred usage. For photographs you can assume a minimum colour consumption of 20 % per colour per page (for 4-colour printers) - probably even more. - that accounts for four times higher costs, than the international measuring standard (based on the old fashioned standard letter) for print page cost, which is quoted by most manufacturers.
- choice of paper, which is limited for dye-subs, but vast for inkjets

The problem is, you can only calculate the consumables costs directly, if you would print out the same pics on different printers. The manufacturers each have their own measuring standards and their cost per page cannot be compared between makers and even within a maker's product range.

The only somewhat objective source for price comparisons are photo or IT mags, because they use usually the same documents when comparing printers and printing cost. The cost they turn out, might not be, what you pay at the end of the day, but at least the cost per page differences between different printers tested by a certain magazine indicate the real world scenario.

regards
René

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:49 am

René wrote:

As a rule of thumb: the bigger the printer, the lower the costs per print. BUT you have to consider initial purchase costs as well. If you only print ten or 20 sheets per month, the purchase costs over an expected lifetime of 3 or 4 years drive the cost per print higher.

So, our rule of thumb is only valid, if you really have a high throughput on those large format printers. All the numbers given by the manufactureres on the "total cost of ownership" are based on high print volumes and are still somewhat "optimistic". For anyybody prinitng only a few large format prints over the year, going to a good print shop is the better and cheaper option, not the least, because you don't have to pay for test prints etc...

regards
René

100% agree. I should have mentioned that.

If you are not printing reasonable volumes (it does not have to be a pro studio volume, but reasonable) the cost of the printer itself needs to be taken into account. The more costly the printer, the larger the volume needs to be.

The R2400 and the Epson 2200 before it are very inexpensive given the quality they produce. So, here, the cost of the printer is easily coverred by even the advanced hobby photographer. The 4000, 7000 and 9000 series are more difficult to cover. However, if you do happen to do some side work, or sell at shows, etc. Then the wide format printers can pay for themselves pretty quickly.

I had never seen numbers from Epson re: the cost per print. (Frankly, I did not even know they did it) I'd like to compare those to the figures I posted though. The numbers I gave above are based on the total ink and paper used during a period of time. I simply totalled the paper and ink purchases over a few months and divided by the number of sold prints during the same period. This would take into account waste and test prints since I am adding total purchases and only dividing but what I have delivered to customers.

One disclaimer: I spent a good amount of time getting the printer set where I wanted (profiles) and, as such, don't need to run many test prints any more. The cost calculation I made above was done after I had the printer configured to my needs. It really was not a big deal though. The Epson profiles are excellent and in fact I use them for Preimium Luster. The only profiles I "customized" were for some of the matte mediums, like Velvet Fine Art.

Hope this helps

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:03 am

DigiMan wrote:

Quote:

The K3 ink set is the new version. This comes in the R2400, 4800, 7800 and 9800. They have a wider gamut (it was pretty large as it was before) and they print better B&W.

Is that the set that pantone made for the 9600?

I know they came out with a set of inks with a tremendous gamut and less matamerism. May be worth looking into if your going to go with an epson.

The K3 inkset is the new Pigment based inkset from Epson. It is available in the Stylus R2400, Stylus Pro 4800, 7800 and 9800. It is called K3 b/c it has three black inks. Photo Black, Light Black, Light Light Black. ( Those are the "actual" names.... Epson is so creative.... lol ) In addition to that the pigments used to make the inks are now ground even finer than before. The combination of these factors (and a few others I will not deal with b/c of space) helps with a few things. B&W prints improve a great deal over the previous pigment system from Epson. In fact some publications (I have not compared yet) claim better (deeper) blacks than one can get from a silver print. That is awesome. The color gamut is larger. Glossy images print better. etc. etc.

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:52 am

luisv wrote:

100% agree. I should have mentioned that.

I had never seen numbers from Epson re: the cost per print. (Frankly, I did not even know they did it) I'd like to compare those to the figures I posted though. The numbers I gave above are based on the total ink and paper used during a period of time. I simply totalled the paper and ink purchases over a few months and divided by the number of sold prints during the same period. This would take into account waste and test prints since I am adding total purchases and only dividing but what I have delivered to customers.

One disclaimer: I spent a good amount of time getting the printer set where I wanted (profiles) and, as such, don't need to run many test prints any more. The cost calculation I made above was done after I had the printer configured to my needs. It really was not a big deal though. The Epson profiles are excellent and in fact I use them for Preimium Luster. The only profiles I "customized" were for some of the matte mediums, like Velvet Fine Art.

Hope this helps

Luis, your approach is really professional and sophistitcated and I can only congratulate to that. Also I will keep your numbers for actual printing costs as a reference for "real life" experiences.

I was under the impression, that "queenie123" is more kind of an amateur - and then usually your price tags are much lower, because everything is an investment for a hobby and there is no ROI. This is, why am so cautious in mentioning numbers. My own experience with HP printers lead to higher cost, especially as I need to use HP's own "Premium Plus Photo Paper". Anything else gives a yellowish tint and sometimes even muddled colours at edges. Nevertheless I value the PhotoREt IV printers by HP very high, because they give a very accurate colour rendition and produce very long-lasting prints (the above named paper is essential for that). Their big drawback are those tiny 3-colour tanks and the miserable software drivers. (But I use Foomatic drivers with CUPS...)
I also think, that my cost per page for my colour laser printers (one Epson C2000, no good for photos, one Phaser 780, quite nice even for photos up to A3plus) are quite higher (because I need much more toner, than the manufacturers calculate for thier published printing cost), than "officially" stated.

I guess, your own experience is proof of what I think: you can only calculate total cost through correct book keeping of your expenses for printing.

regards
René