But that is what you are doing isn't it--flame war I mean?
I just mentioned that a decent wide carriage printer can be had for what is an affordable price for many. I said nothing about better, or that you should switch. However I have been doing a bit of research about this, wide carrige photo printers, recently. Just wishful thinking on my part as I can only afford a hundred bucks or so for a new printer (Anybody want to give away a 1280? I could pay the shipping.) Buy reading reviews on printers written by folks after they have owned them for awhile.
I find more problems with Epsons than with most other brands. Which is interesting because most of my printers have been Epsons starting with an MX80, and a Radio Shack computer around 1980. I have owned a few others however. The one that was the most rugged and had best type quality, as well as being the slowest and noisiest was a Xerox Daisy Wheel with a sheet and envelop feeder (University of Michigan surplus). Resumes printed on it got an 83% response (In case someone says the physical quality of your resume doesn't matter).
I have had two Canons an inkjet which clogged the head like crazy and a Laser
printer. That old (10 years now?) LBP-430 is still chugging away as my text
printer. I seem to get about 3000-4000 pages to a toner cartridge. That is
cheap, no ink jet can do that.
The other was a BJP-620. At the time I bought it it was their top of the line
model with the individual ink cartridges. That is pretty common now but back
then it was revolutionary. When I went to replace the ink head I found out it
cost almost as much as a new printer, but since it was user replaceable I
soaked it in a jar of rubbing alcohol for a week, did a couple of cleaning
cycles to get the alcohol out of it and it worked fine. But the photo print
quality wasn't up to any standard I could accept. In fact that was the printer
that prompted my inkjet printer challenge here on the list. Your and everyone
else's samples showed me that inkjets could do good photos.
Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow,
expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff from
ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that the 2880x720
spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems for which is is
justly infamous. However I have developed techniques which minimizes that:
Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using it regularly. If it
absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it set overnight before doing
another nozzle check. That seems to work as well as doing 10-12 head cleanings
which is what it seems to need if you follow Epson's instructions. Done their
way you use more ink cleaning the nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots
of money, I guess. BTW, I have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the
Epson, although the Epson ink give better color control.
But back to the Designjet printers. They are nothing like HP's desktop printers. For one thing they have separate user replaceable heads, one for each ink so you do not need to buy a $400 head if just the Magenta is clogged. Print quality is more than just acceptable. Print life is almost unbelievable, 200 years under glass and away from UV even with glossy paper (they do specify that and give specs for not under glass, and even for under UV as well, all tests done by that company that everyone says is the best --name escapes me at the moment).
At $1300 you do not get the Adobe RIP software, nor the roll paper feeder both of which I
believe comes with the Epson 4000 ($2000), The new Epson 4800 ($more) has 8 inks, instead of
the 6 of the Designjet-130 and Epson 4000. But how many of use use Postscript to print photos?
So the fact that is an option is really a benefit for many of us. They are all basically
"C" size (18x24) plotter/printers, however the Designjet will take hand or roll fed
paper up to 24".
As I said, I am just wishing, but if I could afford one that is what I would get. My 5mp
digital P&S camera would not do it justice, and I would never print enough photos of
my own to to pay for it. But if I could get one I could probably do some custom printing
for others with it. (Aside to Mark Roberts: it will do 24"x64' (that's 64 feet)
panoramas. You could probably have it print out while you were on a weekend trip to say
GFM.)
Go easy on flaming me now guys, I just got home from the hospital a few hours
ago (sinus surgery, had to stay overnight as I was slow recovering from
anesthesia, and bleeding), and am on painkillers right now.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Yes, I know other printers are available that will print larger. I'm interested in the best quality print I can get, at home from a printer I can afford.
Until, I see otherwise I'll stick to Epson's line of printers. Ask Geo. Lepp, John Shaw etc. There is a reason they use Epson and its not because they might be sponsoired by them.
Not intending to start a flame war, but for my money Epson is (for now at
least) the way to go).
Kenneth Waller
-----Original Message-----
From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why full frame?
A HP Designjet 130 is only $1300, and will do upto 24" x 36"(or longer). Many on the list paid that much for their istD.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Kenneth Waller wrote:
how often do folks make a 20x30 or
anything larger than 8x10(12) these days?
If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to print
these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out of the
reach of most of us wanna bee's).
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005
