printer recommendations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

printer recommendations

Fred A. Miller
On 02/11/2010 08:23 AM, Daniel Bauer wrote:

[snip]

> > Lynn, I guess for approx. € 200 you should get quite a nice printer, but which
> > printer is a matter of taste. I personally have very, very good experience
> > with the Epson Stylus Photo printers. The one I use today is more than 5 years
> > old. Never had any problems to use it with Linux. Besides of the printing
> > results I also prefer Epson over HP because of the sound, HPs are very loud
> > with a lot of "klack klack"... (but again: personal opinion only).
> >  
>  
With professional photo printers, HP is "miles" ahead of Epson in
quality! MUCH
quieter, MUCH better flesh tones with HPs pigment inks that Epson, and with
most printers, field replaceable heads....NOT true of Epson. Note: These
are Pro.
printers.

> > Ink is not cheap, though. Quality photo printing needs a lot of ink. Consider
> > printing your series thru a printing service, that might even be cheaper than
> > the costs for the ink. If you're in a city I guess there are several services
> > near you. Compare prices and quality (give them 1 file and compare the
> > results). There are also many offers online, mostly with quite good quality.
> >  
>  
Most printing services won't produce anywhere near the quality I can on
my own
printer. Further, I can produce better than 200 yr. archival, if need
be, and they
can't with photographically produced pics.

Fred

--
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other." John Adams, 2nd US President

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: printer recommendations

Carlos E. R.-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Thursday, 2010-02-11 at 16:32 -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:

>>> results). There are also many offers online, mostly with quite good quality.
>>>
>>
> Most printing services won't produce anywhere near the quality I can on
> my own printer. Further, I can produce better than 200 yr. archival, if
> need be, and they can't with photographically produced pics.

There is another color printing technology, for photos, designed by the
extinct Polaroid, by people that had to found another company when it
sank. It is thermal, and colour. Aparently stable, small, and afordable. I
don't remember the name, but there was an article posted in the ieee
spectrum not long ago.


- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkt0j5cACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XzPACeP3OH0PkAyuddP/cr5bNSX25g
q7cAnj4NdeXNIkMC2lOZC2GCxEIIM6HC
=w1Wu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: printer recommendations

jdebert
In reply to this post by Fred A. Miller
Fred A. Miller さんは書きました:

> On 02/11/2010 08:23 AM, Daniel Bauer wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Lynn, I guess for approx. € 200 you should get quite a nice printer, but which
>>> printer is a matter of taste. I personally have very, very good experience
>>> with the Epson Stylus Photo printers. The one I use today is more than 5 years
>>> old. Never had any problems to use it with Linux. Besides of the printing
>>> results I also prefer Epson over HP because of the sound, HPs are very loud
>>> with a lot of "klack klack"... (but again: personal opinion only).
>>>  
>>  
> With professional photo printers, HP is "miles" ahead of Epson in
> quality! MUCH
> quieter, MUCH better flesh tones with HPs pigment inks that Epson, and with
> most printers, field replaceable heads....NOT true of Epson. Note: These
> are Pro.
> printers.
>

The HP Pro series printers are quite a bit more expensive than the
Epson pigment printers, aren't they? For a  cheap archival printer, I
don't see how you can beat Epson, provided the color profile has been
correctly adjusted.

And has anyone seriously done a cost comparison of printers? With
numbers? All I've seen so far is a bunch of talk about how much better
it is to buy a more expensive printer because the cost of ink for
cheap and "throwaway" printers is high relative to the price of the
printer. Lets see some objective numbers: cost-per-print, cost
amortizations, equipment lifetimes, MTBF's, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Minus the manufacturer sales spiel, of course.

I recently found some very hi-res colour archival prints from HP and
Canon printers made between 8 to 12 years ago and they really look
awful now. The most obvious problem is bleed but it seems that they
are changing colour as well.

I have 6 & 7 year old archival very hi-res prints made on a Epson C84
that still look like they just came off the printer. No bleed, no
fade, no loss of definition or resolution. As an experiment, I stuck
some prints from the HP, Canon and Epson printers under a parallel
light Canon UV lamp (a uniform 3.0-3.5mW/cm^2@365nm, 340nm to 390nm
for those interested) for 7 days and the Epson prints were the only
ones that did not bleach out or fade. The Canon prints were mostly
pale yellow and a little very pale cyan and the HP prints were a very
pale yellow. Even the black ink bleached out. The paper itself did
change colour as well but since it was a strong UV light that was
expected. Of course, this was comparing non-pigment to pigment inks
but the printers were each under $100US, priced within $20US of each
other, and neither Canon nor HP had pigment ink printers for anywhere
near $100US. Especially any that worked with anything but Windoze and
maybe Mac.

Maybe that has changed lately but I'm certainly not going to run out
and buy a HP printer to see if anything has changed, nor am I going to
believe what HP says anymore. It seems that HP quality has devolved
significantly over the years, esp. since the split, and I don't want
any more of their stuff that will probably expire with the warranty.

Unfortunately the Epson Stylus series printers, like the other cheap
brands, are more or less "throwaway" printers that aren't worth
repairing outside of warranty. But there are certainly factors that
make it preferable to the other "throwaway" brands. I've had my
"throwaway" C84 for 7+ years, now. I originally bought it in lieu of a
huge and extremely expensive laser printer I was told was needed for
printing 2-sided contracts and legal documents required to be kept for
50 to 100 or so years. Printed on 100% rag, the docs still look good
after 7 years. Better than laser printed docs made just 3 years ago
and they don't stick together.

==
jd
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
                -- Groucho Marx
--

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]