Inkjet printers: mad and bad

[nzdavid]

I really shouldn't get mad at inkjet printers. After all, a new one costs only as much as two

or three new ink cartridges. But the price of ink! The British Consumer magazine did a

price comparison and reckoned ink works out more expensive than vintage champagne.

 

It does get me that the life expectancy of printers seems to be only two years. My first

one was an Epson 740. It seemed to be well built, but took ages to print, and the quality,

while not displeasing, seemed unrealistic. My next one, a Canon i560, cost half as much,

was twice as fast, and I really liked the results. Until its started spitting out muddy,

yellowish prints.

 

I was told it needed a new printhead and just wasn't worth repairing. I was told HP was

much better, since the ink cartridges and printhead are combined. So I got a HP

photosmart 7760. Results are fine, but not noticeably better than the Canon. And prints

take three times as long.

 

I have since read you can remove and clean the Canon printhead yourself, which I have

done (funny, they don't tell you this in the manual, I wonder why!) It's better, but not that

great.

 

I have also discovered paper makes a huge difference. I still prefer Canon over HP, but

haven't tried Ilford Galerie or other specialty papers. I found generic "photo quality" gloss

paper, while only slightly cheaper, was rubbish - blotchy, muddy colours - yuck!

 

Hmm. I would like to get a quality A3 printer, but just don't see that they are worth it. I

have no confidence in any of these products' longterm reliability. They seem to be more

plasticky than ever.

 

For viewing prints, I reckon transmitted light - preferably projected slides, but also

viewing on a screen - is best. But it's nice to occasionally make a few prints for yourself or

other people. It seems silly to have expensive Leica lenses, then make inferior prints. Last

year, I took a print film to a Fuji lab for the first time in ages to get some postcard prints

done for friends. I was expecting mediocre results - but was blown away by the results on

Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

 

Yes, I know 10 years ago we didn't have inkjet printers, so we're better off. But I wonder

how many people are missing out on getting the best out of their gear because of bad DIY

printing and printers? Any advice, similar experiences, recommended URLs or books

welcome!

[daniel_taylor]

The Epson R800 solved all my complaints about ink jets. Never clogs, beautiful prints that don't fade, quiet, fast. It also set me back $400. You get what you pay for.

[Spearhead]

So you spend thousands of dollars on a Leica but expect a lot from a printer you can buy for $89?

 

Get a good printer, an Epson 4000 or, if you don't need to go that big, a 2400. Then you can make good prints.

[Brad_]

<I> It seems silly to have expensive Leica lenses, then make inferior prints.</I><P>

 

Well, if you're going to spend all that money for leica lenses, it seems silly to cheap-out on

your printer. I get oustanding B&W results from my Epson - much better than sending out to

a custom lab. Why is it that you can't?<P>

[erudolph]

The learning curve for good inkjet printing is fairly steep. It's easy to get started, not easy

to get good. However, buying an Epson fine art printer is one good way to start. That and

learning about color management.

[awahlster]

I have a 5 year old HP-932C that while not the best photo printer does all the grunt work for the wife and I never misses a beat. I have a Canon i960 that makes the most beautiful glossy prints on Costco Photopaper and awesome matte photo's on epsons enhanced matte paper.

 

I have a 2 year old Epson 890 that only does B&W But I still haven't gotten it all set up yet to lazy I guess.

[EricM]

I had an epson 2200 on my shelf for half a year, given to me, and I thought "inkjets sminkjets, yeah yeah" and it sat there collecting dust then last week I plugged it in, cleaned purged banged it around some and oh boy am i ever impressed. I can't stop printing...it's like the good ole days being in the wet until all hours with jazz and red. funny though, one difference compared the wet darkroom, not many girls want to come check out your digital darkroom and print all night :(

 

David, you blown away by fuji frontier and crystal? Try the lightjet. That'll blow you away!

[db1]

Try the darkroom.

[Alex_Es]

Inkjet is still in the Bronze Age. But there is a future. I use a Canon MP900 which I like

very much. Good B/W, okay color. Every Epson inkjet printer I have used has been a

mechanical nightmare. Told by one expert that Epson does not work well with Macs,

which is what I use. So no more Epsons for me.

 

I primarily shoot for publication. Am behind (way behind) on fine arts printing. Need to

bone up on that as I have an exhibition coming up in the near future.

 

There are ways of combining digital and wet darkrooms. Space and time has precluded

my ever having a wet darkroom. Inks are expensive. Fortunately, I am subsidized by my

university in part. Do wish they would provide the vintage champaigne.

 

Amazing how good even not great publications on not great paper can be. Below are shot

of King Lear from last May that I have just come out in my English department's scholarly

journal. I shot with M6s, used flatbed and negative scanners, and finished with Photoshop

7. Had to convert to B/W because the printing company couldn't handle color. Converted

the files to JPEG and sent via e-mail.

 

Published, they are small, about half the size of an ordinary machine print.<div></div>

[brambor]

I print on HP Photosmart 8250 that my 8year old got for christmas. I love the results. I don't know what took me so long...

[sk_szekiat]

dunno about you guys but i use a canon ip3000 for my everyday printing. Linked with a

good continuous ink system, it costs me about 20USD per ink change and that will last me

at least 5000 sheets of normal prints or 500 A4 photos. Not too expensive by my

reckoning. I think the main problem is that propriety ink is really expensive and the

difference in quality color depth is only minimal. I see it sometimes, and i know the

limitations of my printer but it gets the job done 95% of the time when i need decent A4s

in a jiffy. If u happen to be from the uk, prob not, there's also pro-am imaging online that

does 12x18 at 1 UKP a copy. you can't beat that for value i think!

Oh, and lightjet really is cool. When i get funding for exhibitions, i always chose to use

lightjet! Its like the old lambda printing but gone cheaper!

[working camera]

I think the current attitude many still have against inkjet printers is historically based. Ink jet yuck cheep and nasty, thatﾒs how we got the silly term glicee or giclee in the printer lexicon. French for spit through a nozzle as I understand.

 

But gee the results that come out of the later generation printers is pretty hard to argue with. I donﾒt know if an iris printer has any advantage these days. The results from the big Epsons is very impressive. Like a well made silver print you have to see the results to really appreciate it. I canﾒt really understand why folk could prefer a Lambda or Frontier over an inkjet.

 

The possibilities with digital colour printing are exciting. And if you can believe the project life times of the archival inks and papers, who would get a Cibachrome done these days? And some of the art surface papers are just dishy.

 

Stuff hand printing colour negs... even with a machine, nah. Inkjet... I'm in boots and all, just love um. When you get a print to come out just right ...the feeling is no different to the B+W darkroom.

 

C.

[keirst]

If you are dissatisfied with inkjets and want durable color prints, get a Fuji Pictrography

printer. These use a paper very similar to Crystal Archive and look much more like a

conventional Type-C print. Unfortunately, they are very expensive and large beasts.

[jtk]

Inkjet technology is VERY good today, has been for several years.

 

Just as our Leicas may not be worth much in a couple of years, due to changes in technology (emergence of superior digital cameras, not to mention vanishing photolabs and film), so with inkjet printers and scanners.

 

Lacking color darkroom experience, people obviously find fine inkjet printing as challenging as fine color negative printing. People who think they can buy good inkjet prints. simply by buying technology are doomed to disappoinment, just like people who buy Leicas thinking they're buying fine photographs. Few photographers were ever good photo printers in B&W, and almost none were good with actual professional color printing materials (ie Ektacolor (negative) paper...Ciba was always mostly a flashy, inaccurate, amateur product).

[EricM]

anone printed canvas through their epson?

[Brad_]

Eric, Jeff has - the results look great. I've expermimented a bit but haven't produced

anything interesting yet.

[EricM]

thanx Brad, I went to pick some up yesterday but they were out of stock.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<b>Inkjet is really old. I am surprised that folks have not heard inkjet before, or aware of inkjets actual operating costs. </b><BR><BR>In running a print shop one learns of the inkjet cost by paying the bills. One questions the several thousand dollars of money spent on inkjet INK , and learns to figure the cents per square foot of saleable output. Companies do this to gain a handle on production costs. In printing seminars 15 to 20 years ago folks went into figuring inkjets costs. INK has been used in printing for many centuries, it is a 2 decade commonly well known fact that inkjet inks cost more than offset inks and other printing consumables like toner.<BR><BR><b>Maybe there is a time warp, some folks are stuck in 1984? :) </b><BR><BR> HP made disposable ink cartridges 22 years ago. The 3 1/2 inch floppy was just introduced, DOS was at 3.0 finally and could support a 32meg HDA and 1.2 meg 5 1/4 floppy. Version 3.1 added Network support. The IBM AT was introduced in 1984. Mandatory retirement at age 70 was eliminated for employees of IBM in 1984. The 1984 IBM AT had a powerfull 286 processor, 16 bit data bus and a monster 20 meg HDA. AT Units that did NOT have the HDA had this HUGE dummy load resistor to keep the power supply loaded! The Apple Macintosh line was introduced in 1984 too.<BR><BR>Inkjet was around and being used alot before Photoshop was invented, before the "digital" type of still image capture came out.<BR><BR><b> The first time I got an inkjet printer over 2 decades ago I quickly noticed that inkjet cartridges cost something to replace, because I paid for the cartridges out of my own wallet's money.</b><BR><BR> Folks who didnt pay for the inkjet cartridges themselves then would go crazy with colorfull pie charts in business applications, since the company often footed the bill for the ink.<BR><BR>Not knowing that inkjet inks cost some money is like not knowing a big dog eats more food, or a car requires tires and gasoline. <BR><BR>Usually all of us at first are not knowing of the real operating costs until we have to personally pay for the gasoline, tires, dogfood or inkjet ink.<BR><BR>In running a print shop the costs of materials and labor are always being sweated to try to turn an actual profit. The costs of paper, inks, toner and labor are sweated, dissected in great detail, and often kept secret from ones competitors. For inkjet printers folks/printers often use giant bulk ink cartridges and tanks, and dabble with 3rd party NON manufactures inks too. <BR><BR>Inkjet printers are sold at a low to nill profit, to get you hooked on the sweet annuity profit stream of buying THEIR ink. Ideally they want your printer never to use ANY generic cartridge or inks, or the cartridge to be refillable. This "razor blade" model is as old as inkjet; over 2 decades plus. Study "KING Gillete".

[Spearhead]

<i>anone printed canvas through their epson?</i><p>

 

As Brad mentioned, I have done this. It works best with photographs that look "painterly" to begin with. It works with other photographs, but doesn't have quite the same impact.

<p>

I prefer it mounted on stretcher bars (this is easy to do, don't pay for it) because it lets the image wrap around the edges. If it's going to be framed, do it in an open frame for the effect. If you mount on stretcher bars, you lose a few inches on each side in total size (print almost to the border though, for the wraparound effect.<p>

 

Inkjetart has an excellent "house" canvas at good prices.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many folks tend to ignore the costs of inkjet inks while purchasing their first inkjet printers. For decades the printer makers many times give "coverage" figures like it is still 1984, and folks are plotting Mac versus AT versus Tandy sales with a dinky bar graph with alot of white spaces. Ancient coverage was sometimes only 5 percent, then went up to 10 sometimes. With printing photos and solid full page bar graphs one quickly learned that ones cartridges had to be replaced quicker. In the 1980's many companies had rules to reduce ink usage, one had to use hatched instead of solid bars and solid pie charts. These hatched outputs often copied radically better with regular B&W Xeroxing. <BR><BR>With my ancient RIP stations on my poster printers from over 1 decade ago, they give the cc'c (volume) of C, M, Y, and K ink used for each poster sent thru the RIP box. This tracking of "inkjet volume used technology" existed when the fastest CPU was a 486, and Windows NT was at 3.1 . <BR><BR>Print shops were sweating inkjets costs when some folks here thought inkjet wasnt even invented yet. <BR><BR>In all fairness I don't think the dinky inkjet print makers really want you as a home customer to dissect what your real print costs are. With a print shop one has to know what ones costs are. In a home situation they would prefer you to shuck out that credit card and keep the sweet annuity of cash flowing to the cartridge makers.

[Spearhead]

I don't see anyone else getting excited about the cost of printing, I'm not even sure why you're making such a big deal about it.

 

If I wanted low cost prints, I could go to Walmart. What I want, and what most people here appear to want, is quality prints. I can make a very high quality print, with complete control, on my inkjet printer. Even if the ink and paper cost came to $10 for 11x14 (which it doesn't, it's much less), that's better than the $20 I used to pay for a hand-printed lab color print.

 

Cost may matter if you're printing 100 prins a week, or if you're running a lab, but the home cost is trivial, especially if you add in gas and time.

[leica ron]

I've printed Hahnemuhle German Etching through my 2200 and the results are very pleasing. You do have to download the correct icc profiles and select the print setting carefully to get the best results.

 

Printing at home on an inkjet is at very worst the same as going to a half-decent pro-lab.

 

My future plans include getting a 2400 and turning the 2200 into a B&W only printer with a specialised B&W inkset ....

[kelly_flanigan1]

By printing at home you as the shooter can "close the loop" better than any pro lab. You KNOW if your great aunt's beehive hair is blue, grey, pink, salmon, white, blue white, blue-grey, or green. Your digital camera might have been set to daylight setting and you shot under a mixture of fluorescents and weird arc lamps, mixed with the wedding's disco band's bopping lights.:) Your "reference" is 2 decades of looking at you aunts hair. A lab often gets a mixed bag of images with no color references, underesxposed stuff and a deadline to finish the job.

[nzdavid]

I just knew people would say try B+W (I used to, but it's hard to find time), custom prints

(not worth it except occasionally) or get a more expensive printer (I might, if I could be

sure it's worth it and will last.) Even the cheaper ones turn out good results - miles better

than just a few years ago. Thanks for the heads up on those Epson and Canon models, and

some of the alternatives. It's worthwhile to hear people's firsthand experiences.

[stuart_richardson]

I have a 2200 that I enjoy using for most stuff, but I find that for portfolio or exhibition

work, I get better results by preparing a color managed file to my local pro lab and having

them print it on the Chromira. Since I do all the scanning, editing, color correction,

sharpening and so on, I retain all the creative control, and they only charge me for a

machine print. So I get a superb 11x16.5 continuous tone print that matches almost

exactly what it looks like on my monitor for 15 dollars for the 1st print, and less for any

duplicates. It is much better than I can get with the 2200. Mind you, I am not saying it is

better than ANYONE can get with the 2200, just better than what I have been able to

produce. One advantage is that they are responsible for maintenance, and they do a much

better job of making sure everything is printing consistently and properly than I can, since

they are doing far more per week than I do. For black and white, I still like to print myself

in a traditional darkroom.