Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Best 13" printer  (Read 3143 times)
vaphoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« on: July 20, 2013, 06:01:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I need a small printer for low volume good quality color and black and white printing.
What are the best options?
Thanks
Bob
Logged

Bob
vaphoto
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2013, 06:12:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Check f.i. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/articles.php Keith looks at both color and b/w
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2013, 09:36:22 AM »
ReplyReply

The best 13" printer is a 17" printer.
Epson 3880,not a whole lot out there that can match it.
Logged

Robert DeCandido PhD
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2013, 01:00:48 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are in the USA, look at the Canon Pixma 100 - about $100 after rebate ($300)...it is a dye ink printer (most folks here use Pigment ink printers)

Very good deal - for low volume work you cannot go wrong...

Logged
Atlex.com
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2013, 10:17:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Robert is correct on the Pro-100.  Even though it is Dye based, the print will come out very vivid and clean; though the longevity will only be for about 75-100 years.  Pigment based inks like the Pro-10 and Pro-1 can last around 200+ years.  The Epson R2000 & R3000 are also great 13" models.

If you're looking to do B&W, I would look between the R3000 and the Pixma Pro-10 (Pro-100 if you're looking into pricing).
Canon has a great promo if you add 13x19 paper (luster or semi-gloss), you get the paper for free with a larger Mail-in vs without the paper.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2013, 10:29:01 AM »
ReplyReply

The conventional wisdom is that prints from dye printers won't last as long as those from pigment printers.  Has anyone done any analysis on these new Canon dye prints to substantiate that 100 year claim?  Wilhelm perhaps? (don't see mention on their site)  I haven't followed this closely for a few years, but the last I knew, dye printers needed to be combined with special papers (swellable polymers, if I recall) to protect the dye image from fading.  So, you will have very limited paper options if you go with dye.

Without any additional evidence to support the longevity of dye, I would strongly recommend against photographers buying dye printers.  In this age of impermanence with snapchat and twitpics, if you are going to the trouble of printing your photographic work, archival permanence should be even more important. 
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2013, 10:44:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Just did a quick review and it appears that while the canon ChromaLife 100+ permanence better than older dye printers, you still need to use special canon manufactured papers to achieve those kinds of life.  Further, it appears that light-fastness is around 30 years with their special papers.  This sounds OKAY, but not particularly excellent when compared to matte art papers with pigment ink.

I agree with the previous poster who said the best 13" printer is a 17" printer--the epson 3880.  Much more economical to operate and excellent quality.  Finally, you will have a lot of support among photographers in using that printer.  Less popular manufacturers have less free support (online forums and experiences) than the mainstream photo printers from Epson.

Finally, this isn't at all about image quality of the print.  You can get beautiful results from Canon printers.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:24:23 AM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2013, 11:00:41 AM »
ReplyReply

The conventional wisdom is that prints from dye printers won't last as long as those from pigment printers.  Has anyone done any analysis on these new Canon dye prints to substantiate that 100 year claim? ...


Although Canon undoubtedly makes some longevity claims, I haven't seen any substantive test results on the Pro-100. Just citing general Chromalife 100+ numbers isn't good enough because this unique dye printer uses extra light black and gray dye-based inks as well that are typically not used for most of Canon's desktop models running Chromalife 100+ inks. Aardenburg testing proved that Epson Claria's black ink is significantly less stable than when driven by QTR RIP to make a full tonal scale B&W print using only the Claria black. Using Claria black to print the maximum black (Dmax) value only as it is typically used when applied by Epson desktop drivers in color printing mode gives the Claria black some excess sacrificial ink volume that enables the black to stay black longer than it does otherwise when feathered out to produce lighter tone coverage.  It would be very interesting to see if Canon's dye base gray inks fair any better when applied to make lighter values with far less ink coverage Smiley

Anyone care to submit some samples? I'd like to test some that use the Canon recommended papers, and after that, some third party like fine art mat or "traditional fiber" like Museo Silver Rag, Canson Baryta Photographique, etc. I'd buy this printer myself to test it, but other projects at the moment have funding priority.

I do think the Pro-100 is a very interesting dye-based printer. The printmaking community deserves better print longevity info on this printer and the Pro-10 as well. The PRO-1 should also be tested although it's a relatively safe bet just to look at the test results of any Lucia-EX ink sets on various media to infer how the Pro-1 is likely to perform.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:03:41 AM by MHMG » Logged
Remo Nonaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2013, 03:24:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Bob,

Take a look at the Epson 1430. It can be purchased for under $300. Using the Epson Claria inks, color prints are very stable and brighter than pigment-based prints. Dye inks won't have as many clogging issues with occasional use as pigment ink, which may benefit you if you only use the printer infrequently.

Paul Roark, in cooperation with inksupply.com, has developed several comprehensive black and white strategies using carbon-based inks that are archival quality and low cost. Flipping between the black-only inks and the color inks does not create any problems other than using a fair amount of ink in the head cleaning process. (I ultimately bought a second 1430 printer so I could dedicate one to color and one to black an white.) The 'Black and White The Print' forum on Yahoo recently had a series of posts regarding using just the color-ink black for monochrome inks in the 1430. While not as good as the results with a a full-up black ink set, the technique works fairly well and would be a good solution for someone who only occasionally prints in black and white.

I've posted an image comparing black-only monochrome with UT-14 carbon ink at http://sdrv.ms/13yciSu. Instructions for the black-only settings are posted on the Yahoo forum.
Logged

I really enjoy using old primes on my m4/3 camera. There's something about having to choose your aperture and actually focusing your camera that makes it so much more like... like... PHOTOGRAPHY!
Justin B
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2013, 09:52:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Having a Canon Pixma Pro 1, Pro 100, Epson R2000, R3000, and 3880, I would highly recommend the 3880 first and foremost (duh). I would certainly recommend the Pixma Pros last...depending on the type of media you are looking to print on. You didn't mention that in your OP, so here are a couple of quick thoughts:

Any heavy matte media (fine art paper/canvas) is a real nuisance. It does enforce 35mm margins on any given sheet size on either side of the print when you select many of these media types, which can of course be very constrictive.

Aside from the 3880, I'd go with the R3000 for the win. It's relatively painless to load canvas, and it takes fine art paper like a champ and looks great doing it.

edit: Oh, and our 2880 and R2400 produce some great prints without much hassle as well. You could pick these up fairly economically used, I would imagine.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 09:54:11 PM by Justin B » Logged

JB
jwstl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2013, 11:09:43 PM »
ReplyReply

With the rebate, the Pixma Pro-100 looks to be a good deal. What papers do you recommend for this printer?
Logged
Martin Archer-Shee
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2013, 07:27:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been using an Epson 2880 for the past two years with a Lyson cis and pigment inks. Very pleased. Before that a 2200 and then a 2400. All with Lyson inks.
Someone said the best 13 inch printer is a 17 inch one. I have just agreed with that and bought a 3880. The 2880 sits along side until someone buys it.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712


« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2013, 07:44:54 AM »
ReplyReply

The O.P stated "low volume". I read so many threads about Epson clogging after not being used, that I went for a Canon printer, the Pixma pro 9000 mk2.

I am satisfied for my use (low-volume personal use). Print economy is perhaps not terribly good, but at my volumes the initial prize is just as important (got it slightly used at a good price). It can mess up the final edge of the paper with ink stains (tried the various procedures for cleanup to no avail).

I only wish that A3+/13"x19"/33x48cm was a standard size for which suitable off-the-shelf passepartout and frames could be bought (here in Europe). Custom framing cost me as much as the printer did - per frame! I ended up with somewhat large 50x70cm IKEA frames and cutting my own passepartouts.

-h
Logged
Fulvio Senore
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2013, 11:18:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The best 13" printer is a 17" printer.
Epson 3880,not a whole lot out there that can match it.

This is surely true, but if the OP is planning low volume printing the 3880 ink carts might be simply too large.
Such large carts make printing cheaper, but for low volume it would take a really long time before using all the ink.
IIRIC Epson recommends using ink in six months after installing a cart.
Logged
Sal Baker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2013, 12:07:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The 3880 is the perfect printer for occasional use.  It's the same size as most 13-inch printers, uses Epson K3 pigment inks which last forever, and comes loaded with full 80ml carts.  For occasional use the ink will probably last the life of the printer.

I had dye based printers in the past that needed constant head cleanings if they weren't used regularly.  My 3880 hasn't had a clog or the need for a head cleaning in almost 4 years.  Most of my original carts had been in the printer for 3 years when they were replaced, and a few are still going strong.  Prints are stellar.  I simply turn the printer off, cover it and let it sit weeks or months.  When I turn it on it just works, can't beat that.

Sal
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2013, 07:29:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I only wish that A3+/13"x19"/33x48cm was a standard size for which suitable off-the-shelf passepartout and frames could be bought (here in Europe).
It is no different in the US. None of the
standard' frames fit standard paper sizes.

Brian A
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2013, 08:06:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Why on earth doesn't Epson make a 24" and larger series with 3880 innards.  Reports of the 3880 giving no trouble are as common as the larger ones giving trouble! Huh
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2013, 11:18:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Why on earth doesn't Epson make a 24" and larger series with 3880 innards.  Reports of the 3880 giving no trouble are as common as the larger ones giving trouble! Huh
They do, the 24 inch 7890 and 44 inch 9890 have different, but similar heads (and same ink set). The main difference seems to be the straight feed path of the larger printers which means the print head has to be almost vertical. On the 3880, the head faces directly down.

There are other annoying Epson quirks, like the PK/MK switch. Epson have had and do have printers that have both inks available without the switch.

Brian A
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712


« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2013, 12:58:49 AM »
ReplyReply

It is no different in the US. None of the
standard' frames fit standard paper sizes.

Brian A
Business opportunity: contact some chinese manufacturer of frames in bulk. Order 10.000 frames at 18"x24" and 10.000 acid-free passepartouts. Ought to be only slightly more expensive than regular sizes.

Sell to photography shops and similar.

-h
Logged
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 398



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2013, 12:15:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a Pro 100. Got it with a 50 13x19 sheet box of Canon Pro Luster for $100 after the $300 rebate. I like the printer very much and I have been able to obtain profiles for lots of different papers. The Pro 100 is being treated with a good deal more respect than dye printers usually are.

I have used Canon's small desktop 5 tank printers for several years, currently an ip4920. The prints from these printers, even with only CMK and photo black tanks, have been really good and I have seen no fading, even with ones that were displayed for several years in an office with florescent lighting. The colors are bright (but not overly so) and clean. People who have compared prints from my small Canons with wet prints of the same file always prefer the Canon prints. The only problem with the little Canons is that they wear out too easily. My limited experience with pigment (Epson) has not been so good. The prints were dull, control of colors was difficult and it was always clogged. This was several years ago and, technology being what it is, I am sure things have changed and have no doubt that the Epson 3880 is as good and foolproof as several have said it is.    

The Canon Luster prints nicely on this printer as does Ilford smooth gloss and both of these papers are of the swellable polymer type. If you like glossy RCs, Canon's is nice as well. The only Canon RC paper I don't care for is the Satin.

I have also printed very nicely on Ilford Gold Mono, Canson Platine and Harman Gloss. Being dye, I am slightly concerned about fading with these papers but very happy with the print quality. I have samples of several other Canson papers that I am trying. Most of the Canson papers say they are for use with pigment or dye printers.

I have never printed digital B&W until getting this printer. The initial results have been enough to make me consider closing my darkroom. On either Ilford Gold Mono or Canson Platine, the blacks are deep and rich and deep shadows are not blocked up. Overall they look really good.

Forgive my long-winded response. Realizing I am in pigment printer territory here, I just wanted to defend the Pro 100. Given the OP's question, it may be a very good choice. I am also sure the other suggestions on this thread are quite good.  
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 12:18:39 PM by rgs » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad