Best professional quality photo printer and slide scanner?

[margaret_s.]

I'm in the process of evaluating professional photo-quality printers

and slide/film scanners for the following reasons:

1. I have been shooting 35mm negative film forever but am taking the

plunge and switching to slides for higher quality results but I love

to look at actual prints often and the cost of printing from slides

at a pro lab would be prohibitive, so I want to scan the slides

myself and print out the ones I want on a good quality printer. (And

no, I don't want to switch to digital. I'm partial to my manual SLR!)

2. I want to print out enlargements (up to 12"x18") because I might

be selling some of my photos and I want to keep the cost reasonable.

3. I want to print all photos on high gloss paper.

 

So I need a printer that can produce excellent professional results

without having to take out a second mortgage :-) I've narrowed it

down to the Canon S9000 because I hear the Epson 2200 doesn't perform

as well on glossy paper. Only problem is that I've heard some mixed

reviews about the prints from the Canon having problems with color

fading. Is this true? I can't afford to have this problem if I'm

selling the prints. What other printers would you recommend for high

lab quality in this price range?

 

 

Second part of my question is scanners. Again, I want a high quality

scanner for 35mm film and slides (that have the dust-removing

feature). I have heard the Nikon LS-2000 (2700dpi), Nikon Coolscan IV-

ED (2900dpi) are both very good, but for a little bit extra I can

get the Canon PS4000US which scans at 4000dpi but is slow. I also

heard they are coming out with a 5900dpi scanner this summer (can't

remember which brand) which is reasonably priced and I could

certainly afford to wait a few months. Again, quality is a huge

consideration as I'm very picky about my photos but it has to be

reasonably priced too. (max $700)

 

Any recommendations and suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

If you are looking at selling prints, you should be looking at archival properties. The quality of the epson prints on semigloss and matt papers is very good indeed rivaling or exceeding any printer in my mind. however if you want to print on high gloss paper then you are out of luck as far as print life is concerned.

For the size of print you are making, even a 2900 dpi scanner will be accurate.

as far as scanning and printing is concerned, there is a bit of a learning curve. Scanning is essentially taking photographss of your slides with a specialized digital camera. Generally autoexposure does not give you the best results so you will probably need to practice.

Good profiles for your monitor and printer for each brand of paper you are using are essential. One other item you will need if you are serious is a hardware monitor calibration device like a colorvision spider. This coupled with good profiles for paper will allow you to match the prints to your monitor exactly.

[carl smith]

The Epson 2200 would be your best bet for selling prints as far as the expected durability and the perceived higher value of the prints. If you don't go with it my personal favorite is the larger Canon printers over the competing Epsons when not using pigmented inks.

<br><br>

I've not experienced any more color fading problems with the Canon than I have anything else and if it's behind glass then you don't need to worry much. In those cases the most fading occurs before its framed. Ozone and UV damage prints most and a frame and even cheap glass keeps most away because glass absorbs about 95% of UV anyway. In addition though, theres a print off a Canon S800 I made on Epson semi-glossy hanging in a hallway under fluorescent lights with no glass or frame around it. Hasn't faded any at all that anyone can tell and it's been there since last fall.

<br><br>

As far as scanning goes, the Canon and Nikon as well as Microtek 4000ppi scanners are excellent options all with their relative strengths. The Canon is slower and with very dense slides will have a little more trouble than the Nikon. The Nikon is faster however if you have any warped film its a hassle. It's also rather pricy and when using ICE it can soften the image unacceptably, which is due in part to the optics and the light source. The Microtek is a blend of the two, quick and fairly good detail but no dust removal. That may be a big issue if you have a lot to scan. <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison.htm">Here is my comparison/review of the Canon and Nikon 4000 scanners</a> and there are also links to a Microtek review.<br><br>

 

The new scanner you mention is a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400ppi scanner with true 16 bit capability and high speed connectivity. You might like to have this or one of the 4000ppi scanners for greater enlarging and cropping ability. I think that if you've never scanned before you should realize that when you go beyond 4000ppi (and in some cases less than 4000) you're not gaining any more usable image detail. The biggest advantages of the Minolta are the true 16 bit ability and most likely improved speed. It should cost under $1000, so the Nikon and Canon will likely continue to drop.

[david8]

I second the opinons above, but one issue not in the mix is your

desire to switch from color neg to slides. I would evalute this

before making the jump. Color negative offers many advantages,

especially in the relm of scanning, I know many will disagree, but

neg's very long tonal range, and lower initial density make it a fab

combination with any scanner.

 

The hard part is learning how to scan it and get correct results,

which can push many folks back to chromes: what you see is

what you try to get. It took me over a year and a half to really get

the results from C41 that I knew where there. Once mastered, it

really is a viable option that you should consider.

 

Again, just my opinion.....

[david enzel]

I will preface this response by saying that I am new to digital photography so please consider this as you read my response.

 

I recently purchased an Epson 960 printer and have been printing on Epson Premium Glossy paper and the results are stunning to me. I understand the 960 does not have the archival qualities of the 2200. I use it for workprints and think it does an excellent job on glossy paper. I think the regular glossy paper Epson sells is lackluster.

[mendel_leisk]

Thanks a lot Carl. Now I've got the "Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400ppi scanner" bug, bad...

[margaret_s.]

Thanks to everyone for their comments, insights and suggestions! OK, so it sounds like the Epson 2200 is a winner in terms of a photo printer. BUT there is one thing about this printer... I hear it eats up ink like crazy and that you can barely get 15-20 prints (13x19) out of it before you have to replace the inks (primarily the light cyan and light magenta). Have those of you who own this printer experienced this? This is a real deterrent as it can get expensive (not to mention a real hassle) I hear the Canons are much better that way without sacrificing print quality. So on this point, how long do the Canon S9000 prints <i>really</i> last? Is it really that bad? <p>

 

Oh and yes, Carl.. I think I'll wait for that Minolta scanner. If nothing else, the Canon and Nikons should have dropped a little in price by then like you say. Could make those very attractive..<p>

 

David, as for negatives vs slides.. I've experimented with negatives using the highest grade negative film money can buy and I just can't get the color saturation (even with a polarizer) that I can get with slides. I also want to get most of the saturation on film/slide and not through Photoshop. There are other major reasons too, but this is one of the main ones.<p>

 

Thanks again folks :)

[carl smith]

I should note that for those of you who may not know, the S9000 and its siblings use basically the same ink (or maybe it is the same ink) as my older S800.

 

Other prints I have laying around are mainly from the Epson 1280s which we have quite a few of. Some of them don't seem to have lasted as long as the prints from my S800 on the same paper, however it's hard to say because they're all under very different conditions.

[marshall]

There's a fair amount of information in the archives here and at various other sites, but by what I've read/seen: In general, glossy papers perform worse for longevity than matte papers, regardless of ink source, though with the 2200's mineral-based pigment inks they are better than with Epson or Canon's vegetable-based dye inks. Of course, the testing is what it is (not exactly "real-world"), but it sounds like you're headed for the 2200 anyway, so that all may be moot.

 

If you want to go to 12x18 inches and not have to interpolate the data, then you're looking at 4000 dpi scanning of 35mm images. I've heard that good results can be had up to that size from a 2900dpi scan, but you would be "adding" image data in photoshop. Also check out imaging-resource.com for sample scans of the same image on the different scanners. Good luck.