Best Large Archival Professional Printer?

[teran]

I've decided to invest in a nice large professional printer rather than fork over money to printing labs. I'm

looking to print large archival gallery style prints to sell. I've been researching tons and have found

articles galore stating which printers are the best. So far, I've found HP, Canon, and Epson are top of the

line. I was interested in the Epson stylus Pro 9880, but have read how HP printers, inks and papers

produce longer lasting archival prints up to 250 years. Anyway, I'm curious what opinions other

photographers might have. Thanks

[kory gunnarsen]

Do not rule out the Canon ipf series. A 12 color process and user replaceable heads, it has

my vote over the Epson or HP.

[kerry_grim]

For what it is worth, John Shaw's website states he uses:

Epson 9800 UltraChrome pigment printer for print longevity, and Epson Premium Semi-matte paper.

[colinsouthern]

I agonised over exactly this decision a couple of years ago.

 

After reading a LOT of reviews and talking to people and looking at sample prints AND considering the expertise of service & support people, I was left with the "feeing" that the Canon and the HP "might" be able to do the job (including canvas prints) - however - I was CERTAIN that the Epson could do the job and do it well. The HP and Canon were both cheaper, but they just appeared to be of a somewhat "lighter" construction compared to the Epson.

 

I've never regretted that decision - and when I upgrade I won't hesitate to run with with Epson again. Funny thing was, that once I had it, I realized that some of my priorities were a bit out of whack: I was worried about longevity, but that's just not an issue with any of the major players - I was worried about print quality - but that's not an issue with any of them either. The SINGLE thing that continues to impress me about the Epson is the build quality: It's absolutely built like a tank and has not given a moments trouble in over 2 years. Sometimes I don't use it all that much - other times I work it quite hard - regardless, somedays I could swear that it's almost laughing at me, saying "come on - is that the best you can throw at me!"

[ellis_vener_photography]

Either (am I doing this in alphabetical order , the Canon iPF #100 (5100, 6100, 8100, 9100) current Epson and the HPZ3100 are all excellent printers.

 

A real advantage with the HPZ3100 is that it has a built in photospectrometer so you can quite easily build custom profiles for various papers.

 

A real advantages of the Canon iPF 5100 /6100 /8100 /9100 is it's built-in calibration tools ( note that calibration is notthe same thign as profile building); the 12 color ink set which includes red, gree nand blue inks --increasing color purity especially in the blues , and the ability to print 12 bit per channel RGB color; that they don't clog (wasting time ink and paper)

 

Real advantages of the top of the line Epson printers are; their ubiquity and the piezo-electric ink droplet sizing control.

 

APper choice makes a huge difference.

 

really good management makes a huge difference ( when making my custom profiles I start with Bill Atkinson's 1728 patch target, use an X-Rite i1 pro photospectrometer , and build the profile using the X-Rite /gretag-MAcbeth Profile Maker professional 5 software. I inspect my prints using SoLux 4700K lights (the 5000K lights from Solux lights are also highly recommended.

 

And of course you have to start with an accurately calibrated and well profiled display or monitor (( preferably the Eizo but a 20 or 24" Apple Cinema Display or a late 2006 vintage Apple iMac also work well -- it all depends on what you are willing to spend to get those last few percentage points of quality which generally equates to peace of mind)

 

It takes awhile to really get the hang of top notch color management. I estimate 6 months to a year. (you can do it faster if you work very diligently at it but it does take some time for the ideas to soak in and the bigger picture to form. Start with a book: "Andrew Rodney's "Color MAnagement for Photographers"

 

Here is Bill Atkinson's website: http://www.billatkinson.com

[tmcleland]

For what it's worth, every HP product I've had the **ahem** pleasure of working with has had a working life of about 2 years. From desktop

printers up to the 60" Design Jet. They work great for a time, decent quality and all...then either just quit or start doing "strange" things. The

strangest being ejecting 100+ feet of media, then trying to print on the rollers. Ever try to clean up water-resistant ink?

 

Meanwhile, our Epson Stylus Pro just keeps on chuggin'!

[patricklavoie]

Having several Epson printer myself, i will suggest Epson to people who ask what they should buy.

 

Another thing i like about Epson is i an print on my r200, my 4800 or my 7880 and get similr result as for visual print quality, and i can send the file to someone in Europe that also have a Epson and if he print using the same ICC profile as me he would have the same result.

 

I once try 10 Canon 9500 side by side and send them the same file, same profile, same software, same computer..and get major difference on some of them (not all of them, but enough to make me choose Epson again)

 

Im sure that HP or Canon have several good printer, but i think that many pro use Epson for many reason, like many pro use Photoshop even if they are zillion program that could do what photoshop do in a way.

 

IMO i think its also a question of preference and circle of friend around you taht would make you buy this or that.

[mendel_leisk]

Apart from saying you were interested in the Epson stylus Pro 9880, you don't say what you mean by "large". To save responders having to look up the stat's on that printer, maybe clarify the print size you're interested in.

 

I have the HP B9180 13x19 capable printer. It's inks are said to be very durable, and I have had zero issues with it. If you leave it on constantly it cycles daily, consuming a small amount of ink.

 

It is capable of assessing what ink it has actually layed down, comparing to what ink should have been layed down, and adjusting accordingly. Or at least that's the story ;)

 

I've been very happy with it's output, *but* I really am inexperienced at printing, so take it for what it's worth ;)

[kelly_flanigan1]

With print shop work a "large inkjet" was usually taken to mean at least 24 to 36" wide model thats typically roll fed; ie takes 2 inch core rolls. Here we bought a 36" wide model back in 1994. Today its often taken to be larger than a color copiers output limits of 11x17 " or 12x18"; thus our customers who buy our 13x19" paper call their printers "large inkjet printers". In the signage world and print shops there are 54,60, 72, 84,96 inch color printers; with the oldie 36" size called a small printer.<BR><BR>Place your so called archival work in direct sunlight for several years and the reds will poop out first. There is really no archival printers on the planet for direct sunlight except pure carbon like the cave man era used.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With volume usage one doenst want to be hostage to Acme papers and Acme inks for ones Acme printer. Thus the pickle is to feret out aftermarket value with lower cost consumables; but still deliver archival work. This often involves one doing ones own tests which involve time; labor and money . Its worth it when one spends 5 to 15K per year in ink; less so with low volumes:) The public seems to think Archival is this rigid standard. Whats "archival" enough for a dark bar; home display; image that gets some sunlight; or is outside are radically different. One mut be carefull to read thru the test conditions of archival tests folks and printers preach so one is not caught with reprinting and egg on ones face.

[gaetano catelli]

i'm going to soon take the plunge myself.

 

of the HP, Canon, and Epson, which delivers the 'best' b&w? and, which allows switching back and forth between b&w and colour with the least amount of hassle, wasted ink, etc?

[robert_fisher4]

I'm sorry Kelly, but if you're going to drop the kind of money necessary to buy something like an Epson 9880 or a similar Canon or HP you're not going to mess around with saving a few pennies on ink and risk a fatal print head clog. That's just sheer folly.

 

Now that Canon's on its second generation of pigment inkjet printers I'd be more comfortable with their offerings than I was with the iPF5000. When buying my 3800, that was the choice I had to make and I went with the Epson because they'd been doing pigment inks longer. Visibly there was little to choose between the two in terms of print quality.

 

With the HP, try to find out what paper availability is like. Other HP printers don't typically play well with non-HP paper. Longevity numbers drop off a cliff. Wilhelm doesn't even test (or last I checked anyway) HP printers with non-HP paper anymore.

[gaetano catelli]

i think i found the answer to my question: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KiO6">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KiO6</a>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Robert; its also pure folly to not watch ones expenses in a commerical printing operation; which are inkjet paper and inkjet ink. Its more of an amateur thing to get married to one brand and just use their paper and ink. Here I actually sell paper; many times the same paper is rebranded and sold at 1/2 the price; the bulk inks vary widely too. Plus alot of the general public's requirements are not archival; or tnhey are not direct sunlitr outdoor signage work. Thus with many printers one has differnet combos of inks and papers in usage. <BR><BR>A quick set of photos and banners for a weekend event with printed dates on them gets trashed after usage; its folly to spend double on consumables wher it doesnt matter. You either have to charge your customer more or cut ones profits. In the printing industry many folks us bulk fed printers; this goes back about 1 1/2 decades.<BR><BR> Archival inks and papers are available that are not the offical brands. With volume printing the savings are NOT pennies; but equal to buying another delivery car or two ; or two other printers; or several several laminators; or its equal to the electric bill.. Its more common in signage and commerical printing to consider costs than a typical single printer fine art operation; thus staying with only house brands is warranted. to extend the brand commitment folks with Macs could only buy mac memory; since aftermarket memory from crucial will only save one pennies; and is folly too.:)<BR><BR>With a pigmented printer they *tend* to clog abit more than a waterbased dye printer; thus they need to be used and not set idle for many many days or weeks. <BR><BR>The markup in custom high end inkjet papers, films, linen is alot; radically more than dumb generic copier papers. There are only some many coaters of these products; the same factory often makes many brands; which may or may not be to the same spec. Alot of the production costs in smaller sizes is converting; making smaller rolls; cut sheets, fancy boxes. For the small fry its often not worth experimenting; your paper costs and inkjet costs are pennies. With alot of printing volumes; the paper and inkjet costs become the bulk of the costs and due matter; saying its only pennies is like telling an airline fuel costs dont matter. Much of photo.net readers are not concerned with costs since they shoot for fun and they are not running a business. For others costs can matter; when its the bulk of the cost of the items sold.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The comments about only getting 2 years life out of a printer are disturbing. If thats what folks really get then they should factor in the rapid depreciation in a business sense; since you will be buying 5 printers per decade; the old ones being junked. How many feet of paper; how many equalivalent 24x36" prints does one get out in those 24 months?

[rothelle]

<p>I know this tread is old but I wanted to say it's not true at all about HP dies out in two years. I have been printing on HP printers and all we get is nothing but good ass prints. I have 2 HP Z6100 and 1 Z3100 in the lab and I been printing printing and printing from basic paper to canvas. We also have lots of Epson printers but they are always down or in the mix of clog sent out to be repair, no Canon printer but I have a small old ass i960 at home that I been using and some say you can't use canvas. Well I been cutting canvas into 8.5x11 and running it in my home Canon printer and the prints are great. Well now I'm going out on my own now I ended up with a 24" HP new 3200. The largest I print any way would be a 24x36. anything larger I can run to my friend lab and do or just send it out.<br /> HP are built great and work well just as Canon and Epson. It's what make you happy.</p><div></div>