Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photo printer choice

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 1:46:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have been having trouble installing a HP Photosmart 7960 printer to
my WIN2K system (see my earlier posting, which has not yet been
responded to). It appears that my attempts to complete the
installation are going to fail and I am going to return the unit.

Does anyone here recommend a substitute machine? I am looking for a
"prosumer" printer with which to print high-resolution digital
pictures up to 8 x 10 inches in size (but also able to easily print 4
x 6 and 5 x 7 prints, as well).

The Canon and Epson machines seem decent, but what are the advantages
and disadvantages of each? My price range is up to about $300.00
(US).


Many thanks,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

More about : photo printer choice

Anonymous
July 15, 2004 5:30:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with Win2000.
In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.

If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All these
printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some kind
of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find useful.
I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper feed
path.

Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on gloss
papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be an
issue.

I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there is
no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints from
my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years with
no fading.

Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for them
and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.

As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my Epson
1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I think
the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable color
using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
instantly).

If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the rest:

Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only provides
a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers can
use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent paper
makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful. Epson
papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster Photo
Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an ICM
profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
settings for high quality glossy paper.
July 15, 2004 5:30:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Since the original post said "up to 8x10",the Epson R800 is the one to
beat.Also there are not that many Epson printers using pigment based
inks.The gloss optimiser is found on the R800,and I think that is the only
one at this time.The 2200 does NOT use it!As for price,more like
$400-650.The 2200 being in the $600-650 range.I just trashed my Epson 2200
and bought an i9900.I have several HP PSC units that do a good job.I would
agree the i860-i960 printers are very good buys.I am very unsatisfied with
Epson printers and their cutomer support!
It may be several years before I buy a new Epson! I have purchased 5
printers in the last 3 months,so I do buy more printers than most people!
"bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E6lJc.92010$Kn3.25210@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with Win2000.
> In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
> best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.
>
> If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
> choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All
these
> printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
> correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some
kind
> of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find
useful.
> I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper feed
> path.
>
> Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
> converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on
gloss
> papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be an
> issue.
>
> I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
> professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there
is
> no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints from
> my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years
with
> no fading.
>
> Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
> than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for them
> and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.
>
> As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
> genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my
Epson
> 1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I think
> the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable color
> using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
> Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
> instantly).
>
> If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the
rest:
>
> Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only
provides
> a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers can
> use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent paper
> makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
> settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful.
Epson
> papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
> papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster
Photo
> Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an
ICM
> profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
> settings for high quality glossy paper.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 3:26:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I would suggest looking at the R800 also. It costs around $399. I am sure
you can find it for better. If you want larger sizes then look at the 1280
or 2200 by Epson. I own all 3 and they do wonderful work.



"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:goadnSyFuPWGa2jdRVn-gw@centurytel.net...
> Since the original post said "up to 8x10",the Epson R800 is the one to
> beat.Also there are not that many Epson printers using pigment based
> inks.The gloss optimiser is found on the R800,and I think that is the only
> one at this time.The 2200 does NOT use it!As for price,more like
> $400-650.The 2200 being in the $600-650 range.I just trashed my Epson 2200
> and bought an i9900.I have several HP PSC units that do a good job.I would
> agree the i860-i960 printers are very good buys.I am very unsatisfied with
> Epson printers and their cutomer support!
> It may be several years before I buy a new Epson! I have purchased 5
> printers in the last 3 months,so I do buy more printers than most people!
> "bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:E6lJc.92010$Kn3.25210@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with
Win2000.
> > In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
> > best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.
> >
> > If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
> > choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All
> these
> > printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
> > correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some
> kind
> > of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find
> useful.
> > I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper
feed
> > path.
> >
> > Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
> > converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on
> gloss
> > papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be
an
> > issue.
> >
> > I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
> > professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there
> is
> > no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints
from
> > my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years
> with
> > no fading.
> >
> > Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
> > than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for
them
> > and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.
> >
> > As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
> > genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my
> Epson
> > 1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I
think
> > the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable
color
> > using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
> > Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
> > instantly).
> >
> > If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the
> rest:
> >
> > Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only
> provides
> > a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers
can
> > use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent
paper
> > makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
> > settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful.
> Epson
> > papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
> > papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster
> Photo
> > Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an
> ICM
> > profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
> > settings for high quality glossy paper.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 3:56:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Epson - R300 - prints w/o PC from digital camera flash cards, as well as
to CD-Rs.

Or that RX500? series that has built-in flatbed & film scanner as well
as photo printing.

Epson has cheapest 4x6" glossy paper in 100pk vs. the other brands.

--

Canon - any 6+ color. Fastest photo inkjet printers in general vs. all
other brands. ink carts tend to be the cheapest of the brands.
July 20, 2004 11:22:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If I had your budget I would get an Olympus P-400 dye sublimation
printer. The current price is about $275. I have been suggesting this
to my friends because the prints are the most permanent possible with
currect technology.

Sometimes people are confused by the specs on dye sublimation priters
because they seem to have a lower number of pixels per inch. But each
pixel is a full 24 bits color depth, so it can not be compared to the
dots of a halftone screen printer such as inkjets. There is no
halftone screen with a dye sublimation printer.

I rarely see info on the Olympus (or smaller Canon dye subs) on the
newsgroups so I thought I'd mention it. It is a photo-only printer,
but text printers are available for $50 as a companion unit.


On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:46:50 GMT, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
<lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:

>I have been having trouble installing a HP Photosmart 7960 printer to
>my WIN2K system (see my earlier posting, which has not yet been
>responded to). It appears that my attempts to complete the
>installation are going to fail and I am going to return the unit.
>
>Does anyone here recommend a substitute machine? I am looking for a
>"prosumer" printer with which to print high-resolution digital
>pictures up to 8 x 10 inches in size (but also able to easily print 4
>x 6 and 5 x 7 prints, as well).
>
>The Canon and Epson machines seem decent, but what are the advantages
>and disadvantages of each? My price range is up to about $300.00
>(US).
>
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Bob
>
>Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
>Neurological Surgery
>2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
>Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
>510-849-2555
>
>"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
Anonymous
July 20, 2004 4:16:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Robert A. Fink, M. D." <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ca8bf0dopgdoqeltj84s95kuo8od7m15gp@4ax.com>...
> I have been having trouble installing a HP Photosmart 7960 printer to
> my WIN2K system (see my earlier posting, which has not yet been
> responded to). It appears that my attempts to complete the
> installation are going to fail and I am going to return the unit.
>
> Does anyone here recommend a substitute machine? I am looking for a
> "prosumer" printer with which to print high-resolution digital
> pictures up to 8 x 10 inches in size (but also able to easily print 4
> x 6 and 5 x 7 prints, as well).
>
> The Canon and Epson machines seem decent, but what are the advantages
> and disadvantages of each? My price range is up to about $300.00

Right now there's a great high quality bargain that'll give you more
than you ask for.

One to look at is the Canon i9100. It was Canon's top model a year
ago, but it's price has been reduced substantially to move it to
a lower price-point in their line of printers. It's now a $300
printer (list) but will print up to 13" x 19" (I think) and do
so at up to 4800 x 1200 dpi. Not as high as the new i9900, but
still was thought very highly of pre-i9900.

There are reviews around the web, google should find them easily
enough.

Mike
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 4:05:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Georges Preddivous wrote:

Same old stuff..

Georges, have you ever responded to a questions and not crossposted it
and indicated the one and only answer to everything from photo issue to
medical problems requires the purchase of a Sigma product?



--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
!