Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best printer for 13"x19" prints?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:10:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
Epson my best bet?

thanks,

brian

More about : printer x19 prints

Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:10:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Uh, HP Deskjet 9300 for less than $300.

Any HP will print good as long as you use the right paper and set the print settings correctly.

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?produc...



"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend
> less than $1000. Is Epson my best bet?
>
> thanks,
>
> brian
>
February 16, 2005 1:10:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
> prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
> Epson my best bet?

With the release of the R1800 at $549 (street price will be lower),
you better believe it. Nothing else will come close for the price.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:10:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Einstine commented courteously ...

> Uh, HP Deskjet 9300 for less than $300.
>
> Any HP will print good as long as you use the
> right paper and set the print settings correctly.

I agree, Einstine.

I own a 5+ year-old wide-carriage HP 1220C which was in
the $600 range when new - pretty damn cheap in my book,for
1999!

It is by no means state-of-the art anymore, but it still
prints *damn* fine images as large as 13 x 19, or 13 x 50
with roll paper from the slot on the back.

I use HP's printer driver, not Windoze XPs, much better
IMHO. And, being that this is a much older printer and
older driver, I get pretty good color balance and
brightness, but still do a few test prints on plain paper
to get close before I invest some bucks, time and ink on a
big print.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:04:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
>> prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
>> Epson my best bet?
>
>With the release of the R1800 at $549 (street price will be lower),
>you better believe it. Nothing else will come close for the price.

There may even be some close-out prices offered on remaining examples of
the Epson 2200. I'm using a 2200 now and it's outstanding. Excellent
quality prints on a wide variety of papers. There are many profiles
available so you aren't limited to just Epson paper.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:54:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:10:24 -0500, "Brian Huether"
<bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote:

>Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
>prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
>Epson my best bet?


I'll put in a good word for the HP Designjet 30.

I've used several Epson and Canon inkjet printers
in the past... nothing wrong with them.

The HP offers large, stationary ink tanks,
archival prints with dye inks, economical
operation, replaceable heads, internal
color calibration, and fast printing.

None of the hassles of pigment inks as
in the newer Epsons.

Downsides... it's a physically large
machine, relatively small user base.
The HP dye inks are ONLY archival on
selected HP media.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 16, 2005 11:49:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

One good point for the HPs printers is they are the only printers that can
do a great B&W print without any color mixing to form gray.


"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:kbg6115s0ie3sq0n66rkkqs4uut60rk2ri@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:10:24 -0500, "Brian Huether"
> <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote:
>
>>Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
>>prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
>>Epson my best bet?
>
>
> I'll put in a good word for the HP Designjet 30.
>
> I've used several Epson and Canon inkjet printers
> in the past... nothing wrong with them.
>
> The HP offers large, stationary ink tanks,
> archival prints with dye inks, economical
> operation, replaceable heads, internal
> color calibration, and fast printing.
>
> None of the hassles of pigment inks as
> in the newer Epsons.
>
> Downsides... it's a physically large
> machine, relatively small user base.
> The HP dye inks are ONLY archival on
> selected HP media.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 3:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:51:33 -0800, "Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
>> prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
>> Epson my best bet?
>
>With the release of the R1800 at $549 (street price will be lower),
>you better believe it. Nothing else will come close for the price.

This does look like it will be a superb printer, but my constant
battle with Epsons' head clogging will prevent me from being an early
adopter.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:10:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <urf611dp166qa8c1t5o0mqm6s4m7l2ipuf@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:51:33 -0800, "Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message
>news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>>> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
>>> prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
>>> Epson my best bet?
>>
>>With the release of the R1800 at $549 (street price will be lower),
>>you better believe it. Nothing else will come close for the price.
>
>This does look like it will be a superb printer, but my constant
>battle with Epsons' head clogging will prevent me from being an early
>adopter.

Likewise. In fact, I'm on th everge of abandoning my 1290 in favour of a
Canon i9950. I'm just sick and tired of throwing half full cartridges away
because the nozzles won't work reliably on anything less than a full
cartridge.
February 16, 2005 5:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message news:D nvbe2-jga.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <urf611dp166qa8c1t5o0mqm6s4m7l2ipuf@4ax.com>,
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:51:33 -0800, "Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message
> >news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> >>> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
> >>> prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
> >>> Epson my best bet?
> >>
> >>With the release of the R1800 at $549 (street price will be lower),
> >>you better believe it. Nothing else will come close for the price.
> >
> >This does look like it will be a superb printer, but my constant
> >battle with Epsons' head clogging will prevent me from being an early
> >adopter.
>
> Likewise. In fact, I'm on th everge of abandoning my 1290 in favour of a
> Canon i9950. I'm just sick and tired of throwing half full cartridges away
> because the nozzles won't work reliably on anything less than a full
> cartridge.

FWIW, we've been running an R800 for four months now, and
it hasn't clogged once yet -- and it often goes a week or two in
between print jobs.

I can't say the same thing about our old ESC800, which does
clog on a regular basis regardless of how much we use it.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 6:35:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:49:49 -0600, "SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote:

>One good point for the HPs printers is they are the only printers that can
>do a great B&W print without any color mixing to form gray.

Yep, this is truly horrible on an Epson 1270 if you force the driver
to use Black ink only. The difference between that and allowing it to
mix color is amazing.

Of course color mixed prints introduce color cast issues, which change
depending on the media being used.

Some bright spark at Epson decided that it would be a good idea to put
little spikey wheels along with the rubber feeders, so that on glossy
paper you little tracks etched into the gloss. Hopefully the latest
round of printers won't have this feature.

My last HP (about 6 years ago I guess) did a much better job on
non-photo paper compared to my Epsons onto non-photo paper. So for
regular printing, HP is a great choice.

--
Owamanga!
February 16, 2005 6:35:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9rp611d49up0jk5mjgccrk7ev7mjs5iue9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:49:49 -0600, "SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >One good point for the HPs printers is they are the only printers that can
> >do a great B&W print without any color mixing to form gray.
>
> Yep, this is truly horrible on an Epson 1270 if you force the driver
> to use Black ink only. The difference between that and allowing it to
> mix color is amazing.

B&W/monochrome prints on our R800 are stellar. No bronzing,
color casts or other problems.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote:

>One good point for the HPs printers is they are the only printers that can
>do a great B&W print without any color mixing to form gray.

Nope, the Epson 2200 (and I think the 2000 before it) have a "black ink
only" option in the print driver. Works very well. I often big B&W
prints on an Epson 7500 (massive 24-inch-wide roll printer) using the
black ink 0only option. The 7500 uses the same inks as the 2000.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:16:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ENudnffaNbtOJ4_fRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
Einstine <hello@goodbye.net> wrote:
>Uh, HP Deskjet 9300 for less than $300.
>
>Any HP will print good as long as you use the right paper and set the print settings correctly.
>
>http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?produc...
>
>
>
>"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend
>> less than $1000. Is Epson my best bet?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> brian
>>
>
>

The 9300 seems to only use a black and a multi-color cartridge, ISTM
that this can't be as good as the printers that have as many as 7 color
carts and more expensive to refill as well.


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 2:54:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote:

> Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
> prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
> Epson my best bet?
>
Take my advice and skip the Epson. You'll pay forever more way over the
odds for ink carts, the non-removable print head will clog unless you
keep wasting paper by printing trial sheets or keep printing at regular
intervals.

Go for the Canon - a better printer all round. My Pixus 6100i
does a superb job printing A3.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:29:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've never used the Epson 2200 but my Canon i9900 blows away both my
Epson 870 and my HP1200c. It's nt only better color, but much faster,
too.

Philip

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:10:24 -0500, "Brian Huether"
<bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote:

>Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color
>prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend less than $1000. Is
>Epson my best bet?
>
>thanks,
>
>brian
>
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:41:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> FWIW, we've been running an R800 for four months now, and
> it hasn't clogged once yet -- and it often goes a week or two in
> between print jobs.

That's been my experience with my R800 (PX-G900, actually) as well. It does
consume a gross amount of ink in the cleaning cycle it runs every time you
replace one of the cartridges, so it is _not_ an economical printer, though.

Also, as you mentioned in your other notes, the B&W prints are quite nice.
Fussy B&W types may have a different take on this, so I hesitate to be
insistent on it, but for casual B&W, it looks good.

Another reason I hesitate to push the R800 (and now R1800) is that I suspect
that there is _nothing_ wrong with the print quality in any of the current
printers, and that other than the longevity, it's a toss-up.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
February 17, 2005 12:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <ENudnffaNbtOJ4_fRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> Einstine <hello@goodbye.net> wrote:
>
>>Uh, HP Deskjet 9300 for less than $300.
>>
>>Any HP will print good as long as you use the right paper and set the print settings correctly.
>>
>>http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?produc...
>>
>>
>>
>>"Brian Huether" <bhuetherNO@guitarSP-dreams.AMcom> wrote in message news:XLqdnczTe9f7JI_fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Any opinions on what printer will get me the best quality for 13x19 color prints, as well as monochrome? I am looking to spend
>>>less than $1000. Is Epson my best bet?
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>
>>>brian
>>>
>>
>>
>
> The 9300 seems to only use a black and a multi-color cartridge, ISTM
> that this can't be as good as the printers that have as many as 7 color
> carts and more expensive to refill as well.


HP makes good workhorse printers. Really solid operation and good
drivers that aren't always buggering up. I'm sure they have a model with
individual cartridges and maybe even with the large cartridges I've seen
on 36" wide models. I'curious of the price of a model with those features.

Epsons have the water resistant inks which last longer.

Canon's 13x19 is supposed to be much faster than Epsons but I'll bet a
nicer HP model could print fast too, if that's an issue.
February 17, 2005 1:00:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
>
> I'll put in a good word for the HP Designjet 30.
>
> I've used several Epson and Canon inkjet printers
> in the past... nothing wrong with them.
>
> The HP offers large, stationary ink tanks,
> archival prints with dye inks, economical
> operation, replaceable heads, internal
> color calibration, and fast printing.
>
> None of the hassles of pigment inks as
> in the newer Epsons.
>
> Downsides... it's a physically large
> machine, relatively small user base.
> The HP dye inks are ONLY archival on
> selected HP media.


Here's a look at HP from an Epson user:
<http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi031/HP_D...;
The scanned print enlargements make the HP look awful but they seem to
like it anyways? I like those big ink cartridges.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you are not experiencing head clogs then you must be using factory
ink. I hear that people who use 3rd party ink of all kinds are
susceptible to print head clogs. And that may be true for Canon as well
but I am not sure.

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>"Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>FWIW, we've been running an R800 for four months now, and
>>it hasn't clogged once yet -- and it often goes a week or two in
>>between print jobs.
>>
>>
>
>That's been my experience with my R800 (PX-G900, actually) as well. It does
>consume a gross amount of ink in the cleaning cycle it runs every time you
>replace one of the cartridges, so it is _not_ an economical printer, though.
>
>Also, as you mentioned in your other notes, the B&W prints are quite nice.
>Fussy B&W types may have a different take on this, so I hesitate to be
>insistent on it, but for casual B&W, it looks good.
>
>Another reason I hesitate to push the R800 (and now R1800) is that I suspect
>that there is _nothing_ wrong with the print quality in any of the current
>printers, and that other than the longevity, it's a toss-up.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
>
February 18, 2005 9:32:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What about continuous feed systems? I think only available for Epsons.

measekite wrote:
> If you are not experiencing head clogs then you must be using factory
> ink. I hear that people who use 3rd party ink of all kinds are
> susceptible to print head clogs. And that may be true for Canon as well
> but I am not sure.
>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> "Jimmy" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> FWIW, we've been running an R800 for four months now, and
>>> it hasn't clogged once yet -- and it often goes a week or two in
>>> between print jobs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's been my experience with my R800 (PX-G900, actually) as well. It
>> does
>> consume a gross amount of ink in the cleaning cycle it runs every time
>> you
>> replace one of the cartridges, so it is _not_ an economical printer,
>> though.
>>
>> Also, as you mentioned in your other notes, the B&W prints are quite
>> nice.
>> Fussy B&W types may have a different take on this, so I hesitate to be
>> insistent on it, but for casual B&W, it looks good.
>>
>> Another reason I hesitate to push the R800 (and now R1800) is that I
>> suspect
>> that there is _nothing_ wrong with the print quality in any of the
>> current
>> printers, and that other than the longevity, it's a toss-up.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
>>
>>
February 18, 2005 9:32:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <0xqRd.1156$Pz7.368@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> If you are not experiencing head clogs then you must be using factory
> ink. I hear that people who use 3rd party ink of all kinds are
> susceptible to print head clogs. And that may be true for Canon as well
> but I am not sur
>

Just not true.

Inks from Formulabs, and from MIS Associates (to name two high quality ink
producers) do not clog the heads of my Epsons or any of my 5 Canon printers
any more frequently than OEM inks do.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 10:29:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:09:55 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>What about continuous feed systems? I think only available for Epsons.

Not true. I don't know about the Canon Pixma series, but
there are several available for the Canon 9000, 9500, and
i9900. Try Mediastreet and WeInk.com. (I used a WeInk
CFS on a Canon 9000 for a couple of years.)

That said, I'm not going to buy any more inkjet printers
with itty-bitty carts. Check out the HP DesignJet 30
and 130. Uses big carts that don't ride with the
carriage.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:09:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

>
> AI assume that your "every couple of months" comment was an
> intentional exaggeration. However, just in case anyone takes you
> literally, I have had many Canon i9100 prints (some of them exposed to
> direct sun) up for over a year with no hints of fading.
>
>

I'm talking about ozone damage, not sunlight. I'm seeing serious damage in
about three weeks.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:10:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:

> C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>
>>AI assume that your "every couple of months" comment was an
>>intentional exaggeration. However, just in case anyone takes you
>>literally, I have had many Canon i9100 prints (some of them exposed to
>>direct sun) up for over a year with no hints of fading.

I have some that have been in sun for a year without obvious fading. I
have deliberately left a test print on a windowsill half exposed to see
how stable the dyes are. The result where I live is pretty good with
minimal fading indoors. Better than most colour negative wet chemistry
prints but not as good as Cibachrome.

> I'm talking about ozone damage, not sunlight. I'm seeing serious damage in
> about three weeks.

Where do you live ... LA? That is the only place I can remember being
able to smell the ozone pollution from 50 miles downwind of the city.

If it zaps prints that fast imagine what it is doing to your lungs.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:50:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

> I'm talking about ozone damage, not sunlight. I'm seeing serious damage in
> about three weeks.

Where do you put up your prints? I'd be more concerned about your health
than I'd be about print life...


Best,

Dirk Dittert
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:56:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dittert@despammed.com (Dirk Dittert) wrote:

> Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about ozone damage, not sunlight. I'm seeing serious
>> damage in about three weeks.
>
> Where do you put up your prints? I'd be more concerned about your
> health than I'd be about print life...
>
>
> Best,
>
> Dirk Dittert
>

In my office. There are probably 20 computer monitors and a pair of Fujix
SG3000's cranking out ozone within 100' or so. The air circulation is
less than optimal. At home, with one monitor and one TV for ozone
generation I see bad cyan fading in about 3 months instead of 3 weeks.
I'm at 4950', which ups the ozone content somewhat over sea level.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:57:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>
> Where do you live ... LA? That is the only place I can remember being
> able to smell the ozone pollution from 50 miles downwind of the city.
>
> If it zaps prints that fast imagine what it is doing to your lungs.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>

It doesn't zap ALL prints, just Canon prints. My Epson prints are much,
much more stable.
!