Canon i9100 vs. Epson 2200

C
Posted By
CindySingleton
Sep 9, 2003
Views
2196
Replies
49
Status
Closed
Which one should I get? I’ve had an Epson Stylus 600 that has given me NO problems for 7 years, so I am naturally drawn to Epson. I’d like to do my own fine art and portrait printing so I can control the quality and delivery time myself. Considering just the print quality and headache production . . . which one is best?

~Cindy

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

DP
Daryl Pritchard
Sep 9, 2003
Hi Cindy,

I have no experience with either printer, but I don’t see Canon claiming any more than a 25-year period for lighfastness, whereas Epson claims as much as 80 years for the 2200 with their UltraChrome inks. I’m guessing that the 2200 is overall more likely to be the printer considered recommended for archival printing, so it may hold an edge over the i9100.

Regards,

Daryl
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 9, 2003
I had the same 600, and when it died, I had to choose as well. I happened to choose the Epson 1280, but that Canon was a strong contender. In the end it boiled down to familiarity, and my (probably unfounded) fear that I wouldn’t get as comprehensive support with the Canon in terms of Color Management and profiles, since Canon has a smaller user base, and my guess was that less work had been done. That’s another way to say, if I have trouble with my epson, there are plenty of people who can help.

That said, that Canon is a NICE printer, and someone in this forum who I respect uses it, so I suspect that it’ll be hard to go wrong.

Peace,
Tony
R
Roberto
Sep 9, 2003
I ask where is the proof of the 80 years or even the 25 years. Their accelerated testing methods and rating are based on museum type display and storage. Read the fine print. In real life I doubt either one hanging on a wall in light is going to last.

I have the i9100 and like it a lot. I like the speed and quality. The speed is much better than then Epson for the same size print. The borderless printing is also nice, but the Epson I guess has that as well.

Myself, I wouldn’t spend the extra money for the Epson simply because they say the prints will last for 80 years. I have read too many studies and Epson’s own fine print to believe it. That say I do think the pigmented inks will last longer than regular type inks. But, in the end I don’t think they will last that much longer. Certainly not enough to warrant the higher price for the Epson. If there are other things about the Epson that draws you to it besides the light fastness then that is another story. But, if that is the only reason it isn’t a good enough one for the extra cost.

R

"Daryl Pritchard" <*jazzdiver.com> wrote in message
Hi Cindy,

I have no experience with either printer, but I don’t see Canon claiming
any more than a 25-year period for lighfastness, whereas Epson claims as much as 80 years for the 2200 with their UltraChrome inks. I’m guessing that the 2200 is overall more likely to be the printer considered recommended for archival printing, so it may hold an edge over the i9100.
Regards,

Daryl
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 10, 2003
Cindy, Don’t overlook the difference in printing speeds. I have a 9000, and with a carefully made profile, I get beautiful B&W as well as color, at 4x to 5x the speed of a 2200. And, unless you are fussy, the Canon profiles work really well.

That being said, I probably will also buy at least the 2200, or maybe the 7600. Why? Because the print life differences. And, as long as I may be doing it, I may as well go for the larger printer. (The 7600 prints from rolls 24" wide)

Wilhelm is going to publish life tests on the 9000 or 9100 (same inks). I will wait for his results.

At any rate, I will have the S9000 around because I can see tests at full size so much faster, and if the archival output isn’t needed well, I’ll deliver on that printer.
DP
Daryl Pritchard
Sep 10, 2003
For the moment I can only dream of having a nicer printer than my current Epson 1270. The next $$$ I spend are more likely to be on a new PC than a printer since the 1280 already handles 13×19-inch prints albeit although it is slower and uses older generation inks than the latest crop of printers. I figure claims are to be taken with a grain of salt, but with Epson having most likely invested more money over the long run in producing a wide range of papers and printers, their "80-year prints" should likely outlast Canon’s "25-year prints" even if not by a seemingly 3 times longer span. Until more subtantial data is presented, I’d probably favor the Epson for archival quality printing but the Canon if speed and improved productivity is the higher priority. No doubt both companies make excellent printers. I started with Canon but now use Epson. Just like working in a darkroom that found me thinking after a while that 8×10" prints were "small" and thus moving up to 11×14" prints, I’m almost getting to where 13×19" seems small and 24" wide would be great…but out of my price range. 44" would be super, but darned expensive for just a home hobbyist.
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 10, 2003
"If you can’t make them good, make them big."

Old photographer’s Proverb

I don’t think there is any difference in print life between DYE printers like the 1280 of Epson and the S9000/9100. It is quite dependent on the paper, and Canon doesn’t have the papers that Epson does. So, I print on Epson Enhanced Matte. My own test of the Epson 870 vs.9000 shows comparable life expectancy.
QP
Q Photo
Sep 11, 2003
Cindy,

Most people doing professional work do use Epson printers. There has to be more than one or two reasons why this is so. I do wedding photography and use a digital camera for the ceremony only. My Epson 1270 serves me well for this, and the restoration work of photos that I do on a daily basis. Yes, I am fussy about correct color and resolution. Epson profiles serve me very well. I know that my 1270 is not perfect but no printer is going to be perfect. Printing speed is not my main concern, quality is. Most pros use Epson, period.

Q Photo
B
Bernie
Sep 11, 2003
Robert,

I do think the pigmented inks will last longer than regular type inks. But, in the end I don’t think they will last that much longer.

Solid pigments are very permanent. Paintings in museums show that solid pigments will last hundreds of years. Cave paintings show that solid pigments will last thousands of years. And the Painted Desert in Arizona shows that solid pigments will last millions of years, even with lots of sun exposure.

Cavemen may have also painted with the colored juices of berries, but those organic dyes will have long disappeared, even in the low light levels of the caves. But the carbon black, the iron oxide and other solid pigments are permanent and light exposure does not affect them.

Epson’s 80-year figure for their Ultrachrome pigmented prints is based more on the breakdown of the paper of the print than the solid pigments. When you are printing with solid pigments, the paper becomes the weakest link.

Epson supplies several archival papers and for archival papers the 80-year figure is probably conservative. Even papyrus did fairly well for the Egyptians. But if the paper is at all archival, when you are printing with "berry juice" the dye colors are the weakest link.

— Burton —
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 11, 2003
The reason Epson dominates is they were first with the most. The Canon S series is not to be trifled with. They are a professional printer, the way that PC is as "professional" as Mac. The only reason to do an Epson dye base printer is either ink availability in your area or prejudice.
R
Roberto
Sep 11, 2003
Sorry Burton, I don’t believe much that Epson or any other printer makes says when it comes to print life. Accelerated testing is like putting a new car on rollers and running it till it hits 100,000 miles. What breaks during this test means nothing because it isn’t a real world situation. The same is true for their tests. I don’t know about anyone else. But, I don’t have museum level storage in my house or office to storing printed images.

I also don’t think comparing pigment paint to pigment ink is very reliable either.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to believe Epson’s sale propaganda. I choose not to as in the end you will say just about anything to sell a printer and lets face it you can’t disprove them so you couldn’t file a law suite against for false advertising. In 80 years when they have been proven to be liars it will be far too late. So it is perfect for Epson. Say what they want to sell a printer and there is nothing the consumer can do to disprove it. Got to love that.

R

Burton Ogden> wrote in message
Robert,

I do think the pigmented inks will last longer than regular type
inks.
But, in the end I don’t think they will last that much longer.

Solid pigments are very permanent. Paintings in museums show that solid
pigments will last hundreds of years. Cave paintings show that solid pigments will last thousands of years. And the Painted Desert in Arizona shows that solid pigments will last millions of years, even with lots of sun exposure.
Cavemen may have also painted with the colored juices of berries, but
those organic dyes will have long disappeared, even in the low light levels of the caves. But the carbon black, the iron oxide and other solid pigments are permanent and light exposure does not affect them.
Epson’s 80-year figure for their Ultrachrome pigmented prints is based
more on the breakdown of the paper of the print than the solid pigments. When you are printing with solid pigments, the paper becomes the weakest link.
Epson supplies several archival papers and for archival papers the 80-year
figure is probably conservative. Even papyrus did fairly well for the Egyptians. But if the paper is at all archival, when you are printing with "berry juice" the dye colors are the weakest link.
— Burton —
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 11, 2003
Well, not to trust the manufacturer is one thing. From what Wilhelm says, the pigment life is greater than dyes of the type found in inkjets. Perhaps the actual numbers are suspect, but the essential differences are not.

All we can do is refuse, in the great Kodak tradition, to warrant color changes.

Here’s an interesting link:
< http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/Corbis_WashPost_Text_Onl y.pdf>

It’s not about dye vs pigments, but to what extent you need to go to preserve things.
MB
Mike Botelho
Sep 12, 2003
Robert, I understand your skepticism when it comes to Epson’s claims, but the longevity of pigments has nothing to do with Epson’s claims but everything to do with the nature of pigments themselves. The particles in pigment are much larger than the particles in dyes, so light is able to contact a far smaller percentage of the coloring material, thus it lasts much longer before fading. This is a scientifically proven fact, and it’s just plain physics.

Bear in mind, all pigments (before they’re used for everything from cars to inks) are evaluated to very rigorous ASTM standards, and they are classified as to their lightfastness totally independently of their application. Thus, if a Pthalo Blue is rated at Lightfastness I (150 years), it is capable of lasting that long in whatever vehicle it’s placed, based on it’s exposure to a standardized Lux, of course.

So, you are right when you say things are dependent on the testing criteria, but you are not correct when you say that those methods are inaccurate. The methods used by Wilhelm are extremely scientific and reliable. The real variable, as you point out, is the amount of light exposure they consider average, but you aren’t accurate in assuming that they (Wilhelm at least) test under ‘museum conditions’.

In fact, Wilhelm tests for longevity based on a daily exposure of 450 Lux. Now, while certain home environments can far exceed that under certain conditions, 450 is actually a fairly rigorous figure. Many very knowledgeable people in the field would consider 450 Lux as a higher than necessary figure when evaluating average light exposure.

So, what I am saying is, the longevity of pigments has absolutely nothing to do with Epson hype. It has to do with the physical differences between pigments and dyes, meaning that every company’s pigmented inks are more durable than their dye-based inks. If Canon had pigment inks, they would also last far longer than dye-based inks, regardless of the fact they were made by Canon.

Please bear in mind that accelerated aging tests are very sound scientifically. Which is not to say that pigment-based prints won’t fade more quickly if they’re in direct sunlight for much of the day. But, then, a Van Gogh or Cezanne will fade more quickly if it’s in direct sunlight too. Even pigments have limits.

But, displayed in an average room, a pigment-based print should look the same to out great grandchildren. (Actually, the paper’s character should change before the colors.)

I mean, go look at a Renaissance painting that still has vivid colors even though it may have hung in a church for a couple of hundred years before it even made it to a museum. Pigments of equal durability are available for inks just as well as anything else.

Now, we just have to hope the companies chose the most lightfast pigments for their inks (because, unlike other artist’s materials, the pigments are not labelled…but this is another rant entirely).

Of course, as Lawrence pointed out, it also depends on how much it matters to each individual whether his prints last 150 years or 20 years.

Mike
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 12, 2003
Good response, Mike. I am in strong agreement with your conclusions as to the efficacy of the testing methods. No accelerated test is 100% accurate but even if it is only 90% correct ,90% of 150 years is a helluva longer than the 25 years at 100%, claimed for dyes.

But, even dyes have to be evaluated carefully. Are they aniline or metallized? It seems to me that Cibachrome uses metallized dyes.

The paper change is an important one. I ran my own non rigorous tests of several papers printed on both the Canon and the Epson 870. The images on the Epson Enhanced matte showed a barely perceptible change, except it didn’t appear to be the inks. It was the whitening agent that essentially disappeared. What I could not determine was wether the whitener disappeared under the image as well as in the unprinted areas.

Anyway, I will migrate to something like the 2200, simply for the ability to claim a longer life. What will have to happen is that the two printers will have to be reconciled with respect to their profiles. I do not want to do the kind of testing I do on a machine which takes as long as the 2200 does.
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 12, 2003
Look at it this way. If you buy an epson or a canon, you’re not going to know you made a mistake for at least 50 years. By then, who cares?
MB
Mike Botelho
Sep 12, 2003
Lawrence, in regard to media, accurate profiling is, of course, the key. The best real-world test of two different inks on the same paper is, also of course, done with the best available profiles for each.

But, as far as switching to the 2200 goes, please bear in mind that there are some great alternatives to buying Epson Ultrachromes at their ridiculous per ml cost.

Numerous companies offer Continuous Ink Systems (CIS) for the 2200, plus some very excellent 3rd party ink manufacturers offer bulk ink for these systems (and usually sell a CIS too).

Not only is it possible to drastically reduce your ink cost this way ($20-$40 for 4 ounces = 119ml vs about 8 Epson carts to equal 4 ounces at around $90), but it is possible to attain improvements in gamut, longevity, metamerism and other areas.

For example, it seems as though Lyson Cave Paints may exceed 100 years longevity. Also, they have one black that works well on both Matte and Glossy. (Plus, you can get 4 ounces for about $22.)

Another example is the Indelible Inks, which promise 200 years and have 1 carbon black based black ink. These inks are specifically designed for fine art printing on matte surfaces though, no glossy.

The point is that there are cheaper yet better alternatives out there, but you have to do your homework (since most 3rd party ink is total crap, which makes it difficult for people to trust superior 3rd party inks like Lyson, Indelible Inks, M&M, Mediastreet, etc.)

Bear in mind that Epson extended the color gamut of the Ultrachromes over the Archival inks by including a brighter yellow that didn’t last as long (75 years, thus the rating). But why didn’t Epson include a more lightfast yellow that was also bright and thus bring the longevity of all the inks to 150+ years?

Probably because it would have cost more. On the other hand, 3rd party companies have used longer-lasting yellow pigments which seem to be as bright as the yellow in the Ultrachromes. Plus, some of the other inks show improvements in blues and greens as well.

Of course, if I had my druthers, and a wheelbarrow full of cash, I’d own an 8-color Roland Hi-Fi Jet with great color gamut (due to the orange and green inks) and longevity in the 140+ years range. But it’s not like I have $20,000 or so to spend on a printer.

In the meantime, there are still lots of options for the Epsons.

But, if longevity is a concern, pigment is the way to go. As a matter of fact, more and more people are beginning to believe that pigments inks will become the norm in the future. Fine with me, I say.

Oh, incidentally, Canon has wide-format printers on the way, plus pigmented ink (called imagePROGRAF 8200 pigmented ink). It’s the first combination of bubblejet technology and pigmented ink, and from what little I’ve heard, it sounds promising.

So, the choices available right now may have changed drastically by as soon as later this year.

Speaking of which, since you’re considering a 2200, expect a new 17" printer from Epson quite soon. It will be priced between the 2200 and 7600, logically, at around $1500, and will have 8 ink carts (both matte black and photo black at once… which is wonderful considering a change over can waste around $200 worth of ink on the wide formats… vs around $1 worth of ink on the 2200).

I’m a photographer and artist and have no affiliation with any of these companies. I’m just getting into wide-format printing, so I’ve at least begun to do my homework.

Cheers,

Mike
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 12, 2003
You’re the second person to refer to a mid range Epson at about 16 to 17 " wide, Mike. All this waiting and hoping is very nerve racking!

I have explored a number of alternative inks for both Epson and Canon. I have gone round and round with Lyson and tried (at almost $100/set) the Quad blacks from them. You know what? Black isn’t black. It’s magentaish, and it shifts color with different light sources, far greater than a neutralized Canon full color ink does.

I have seen output from the Roland, and have had a sample of my work printed on one, and I was underwhelmed. The additional colors of orange and green is not intended for Photo repro I read in their literature.

Another interesting tidbit on the Epson Ultrachrome Yellow is that at least one B&W profile for that set reduces or eliminates the yellow from the mixture.

MIS and Piezography are the other systems I have looked into. I ran the MIS set on the 870, and hated it. Why? Because instead of WYSIWYG, it’s What you See is What the Profiler wants you to see. The profiler thinks fine print means platinum. I want the output to be WYSIWYG. Neither company offers that. In fact, Piezo has had enough complaints about the poor blacks, they issued a workaround, which essentially gets rid of the shadow compensation bump programmed into the profile!

I look forward to the Canon offering. If they are true to form, out of the box will be damn good!

PS: When I tried the Lyson Quad Black, I ran the profile supplied from Lyson for that ink on the Canon using the Canon inkset instead. (I love to experiment.) You know what? The Lyson set at Relative Colormetric looks the same as the BJ2000 Canon profile at Perceptual!
R
Roberto
Sep 12, 2003
I have no doubt that pigment based printers prints will last longer. But, that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t believe they will last anywhere close to 80 years. Maybe a few years depending on how and where you store them but that is it.

To me that is Epson lying. Add to that the expense of the high end paper and ink for this and frankly it leaves a lot to be desired.

I also have to say I have a friend that bought the 2200 and while the quality is nice it doesn’t look…"normal" they look like an art print which to me makes it hard to pass them off as photographic prints.

The only thing I can suggest is that each person has to decide for themselves. Both printers are going to print great quality prints. Take Epson claims of print longevity with a grain of salt because you won’t be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

Robert
R
Roberto
Sep 12, 2003
50 Years? Hell, in 2 or 3 years we will all probably be looking and drooling over the next best printer and trying to figure out who would buy our first born so we can get it.

Technology moves fast. If only the government moved as fast.

R
MB
Mike Botelho
Sep 12, 2003
Thanks for the input Lawrence. I’ve been a photographer a lot longer than a Photoshop user, and a Photoshop user a lot longer than someone who does his own inkjet prints, so I’m always looking for opinions and info.

I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that the 17" Epson should be out before the end of the year. I’m no insider, though. So, we’ll see. As for the new Canon pigment/printers, I know they’ve actually shown a wide-format printer with the pigmented inks I mentioned. As for an ETA on that printer, the inks, or smaller format models that also use the pigmented ink, I have no idea.

Robert, I still think you’re letting your distrust of Epson cloud your evaluation of pigmented inks, but that’s your perogative. But I will reiterate that the dry pigments that are used in everything from automobile paint to artist’s color have immutable physical properties totally apart from Epson’s claims or inks.

Bear in mind that most of the modern synthetic pigments have been developed for the automotive industry, where a car has to sit in direct sunlight year in and year out without fading. These are the same pigments that end up in pigmented inks. (The reason that many of these pigments are available at a reasonable cost is because of their widespread use in the automotive industry.) As a photographer you are no doubt aware of the great difference in Lux between indoor and outdoor light. Take a color that can sit in the sun for 10 years without changing and place it indoors in even a bright room (though not in direct sunlight all the time) and it will definitely last as long as rated.

And, yes, I will no doubt be drooling over a new printer in 2 years, but, since inkjet printers allow printing limited edition prints on demand, I have no desire to sell a print today that lasts 5 years and the same print to another buyer in 2 years that lasts 100+ years.

Printing shots for friends and family is a different story, of course. Our digital files will long outlive us, and another print of anything we do can always be printed, next year, or in a hundred years by our ancestors who are curious about how we got by in primitive times like this. 🙂

Cheers,

Mike
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 13, 2003
I can say the same thing, Mike. I am 66 and i have been photographing since about age 15 or so, seriously since 1958. I have done all my printing analog until about 3 years ago.

Anyway, Robert, you keep harping on Epson ads. Have you not looked into Wilhelm’s work on the subject? Don’t take any manufacturer on thei subject until you check with him’

BTW, Wilhelm did his seminal work without any support from the photographic trade. He wanted no influence from suppliers, so he did not take their money.
C
CindySingleton
Sep 13, 2003
This has been very interesting. I think I’m leaning towards the 2200. Whether they have this conspiracy theory going on or not, I’ve been very happy with my old Epson 600. I mostly care about ease of use since there are enough headaches in this digital world. I actually trust Epson, whether the longevity tests are correct or not. Maybe I’ll do my own test. I’ll make a print, set my calendar, and wait.

Now I just need to convince my husband how DESPERATELY I need it! (I’m getting close!)

Oh, and what was meant by the 2200 looking more like an art print than a photo print? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

~Cindy
B
Bernie
Sep 13, 2003
Cindy,

I also trust Epson and have been using my original Epson Stylus Photo continuously since it first came out in 1997. I quickly learned that its prints were fugitive in full sunlight so I purchased a hot laminator and thereafter routinely laminated my prints in ultraviolet inhibiting (UVI) laminating film that blocks both UVA and UVB rays. The laminates have done well. We moved, and I can’t wait to get my laminator out of storage. I also like the extra protection that lamination gives against fingerprints, water, scuffs and scratches, etc. I feel that my prints are "naked" until I get them laminated.

That said, I can think of one possible downside to the Epson 2200 that you might want to look into. I have heard that users of the 2200 report "bronzing" on their glossy prints. The bronzing problem apparently occurs only on glossy paper. Oddly, in the fall of ’97 I experienced bronzing with my Epson Stylus Photo, but only on the Kodak Glossy Heavyweight Photo Paper that was in the marketplace at that time. I understand that shortly after that Kodak reformulated their papers and eliminated that problem with dye inks.

I was amazed when I first saw the bronzing in my prints. Dark areas seemed to have a metallic reflective sheen, as if a thin sheet of bronze metal had somehow been vapor deposited on those areas. I didn’t know that dyes could do that. In some applications that metallic look could have been desirable, but not in my photographs, so I discontinued using the Kodak glossy paper and stayed mostly with Epson papers, although Canon made a heavy weight Glossy Photo paper at that time that worked really well for me and HP made a nice two-sided matte paper that I used a lot of.

I am definitely not anti-Epson, but I just thought I should give you some notice about the possible bronzing with the Epson 2200 on glossy papers. I haven’t seen it firsthand, but actual users of the Epson 2200 have reported the problem on the CompuServe Photography forum.

— Burton —
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 13, 2003
As a final thought, I was going to buy the 2200, but was evaluating the Canon, since I trust Lawrence’s opinion. But in the end, I fell on the "dance with the girl you know", which was Epson. But what I wanted to say was that I personally opted not to go 2200 because my prints, while needing to be photographic quality, are not photographs per se, so I didn’t need the extra inks for the extra money and have been happy as hell with my 1280.
AP
Andrew Pietrzyk
Sep 13, 2003
Most people doing professional work do use Epson printers.

That can be debated.

I have nothing (well almost nothing) against desktop inkjets but…there are other options.

I choose to supply my clients with Traditional Wet Processed prints from digital capture. For variety of reasons.

Speed/cost/quality…I could go on…
QP
Q Photo
Sep 13, 2003
To Andrew,

When I stated that most professionals use Epson printers I naturally meant people that were doing inkjet printing. After all, I do believe that the question from Cindy was about inkjet printers. Traditional photo lab printing is a different area. When we photograph 700 or 800 school children those are handled in the method of which you speak. I’m sorry if my statement was not clear enough for you.
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 13, 2003
Philosophical differences Tony:

When I’m not with the one I love,

I love the one I’m with……

Well, not completely true, but I continue to give others chances to impress me. Who knows? Tomorrow, I may be singing the praises of another printer.

But you can be sure I have thoroughly checked it out, something my girlfriends were quite hesitant to allow. 😉

Thanks for bringing up the bronzing qualities of the Epsons, Burton. I forgot to mention it, and would have given me some reason to pause. While I print almost exclusively on matte, I hold the option for semi-gloss open, and bronzing would kill me.

Without disclosing how and why I know this, there is coming a printer and/or inks that will knock your socks off, both B&W and color. Don’t know anything else.
C
CindySingleton
Sep 13, 2003
OH, C’mon, Lawrence! If it’s in the same price range, I gotta know! Should I wait? How long?

~Cindy
R
Roberto
Sep 13, 2003
Mike it isn’t really a distrust of Epson it is distrust all printer companies that claim quarter century or more print lives. Epson happens to make one of the longest claims so they are the ones I use as an example but I don’t trust any of them. It has nothing to do with print quality, printer quality or if I do or don’t like a company it has to do with no trust accelerated testing. I have seen way to many times companies that have something that can’t be proved one way or another using to push sales. It is just unfortunate that in 10 or 15 years or less when these prints have went down the drain that no one will care enough to talk about it. This is what the printer companies count on. So in the mean time they get the sales from the people that blindly trust what they claim.

Now on a more specific note I don’t care for the Epson 2200 because I don’t like the artsy look of the prints. I don’t think they look like Photographs.

R
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 13, 2003
No one knew how long silver prints would last during the 1800’s either. Until fixing was discovered, they faded damn fast.

Now, we see that the predictions from accelerated testing and actual data coincide rather well.

I cannot say for any certainty about anything. So, do we sit in our teeny tiny world and wring our hands?

A mathematician some years back became so concerned over what was happening to our food supply, he went to extraordinary means to assure the purity, skipping meals if he had to. He died anyway.

Of what you ask?

Starvation

Anyway, it’s up to you Robert. I rally don’t care that much how you implement your decisions.

Cindy, all I can say is putting together Mike’s info and mine, I would wait until one of two things happens.

The new printers/inks arrive

You cannot wait any longer due to client or self demands. Then, I’d go get the Canon.
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 13, 2003
Lawrence,

In truth, the Canon prints faster. I checked them out. I’m not saying my decision was entirely rational, rather, rationalized. If it weren’t for you, I wouldn’t have known how well the Canon did, and it’s an exceptional printer.

In all I would suggest that between the two, the reasons for choosing one over the other are weighted heavily towards personal preference rather than specs.

I just want to be clear that earlier in this post I allueded to a person whom I trust uses the Canon – that was you.
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 13, 2003
Thanks, Tony. I suspected as much. 🙂
AP
Andrew Pietrzyk
Sep 13, 2003
I’m sorry if my statement was not clear enough for you.

Q,

No need to be sorry. I didn’t mean to criticize you for putting Epson and professional photography in the same sentence either.

I’m no stranger to inkjet printing myself.

Cindy did say something about “headache” in her opening post…

…I just thought I should mention another brand of aspirin. 😉

Andrew
C
CindySingleton
Sep 13, 2003
Maybe I’ll wait just a little while longer before I splurge. Or maybe I’ll buy the Canon. I haven’t seen prints done on the 2200(I live in the middle of nowhere) but have seen some done on the 9100 and was very impressed.

BTW, a freshly dead clam tests out as being dead for tens of thousands of years.

~Cindy
QP
Q Photo
Sep 13, 2003
Andrew,

That’s cool. Thanks for the reply.
MB
Mike Botelho
Sep 14, 2003
I hadn’t checked this thread for a while, and would just like to add a couple of comments.

First off, bronzing is indeed a concern with the Epsons (or, more specifically, with the Ultrachromes). There are various full or partial fixes for this, the best of which is sticking to matte surfaces. Otherwise, there are various approaches from alternative inks to tweaked profiles, but, of course, this may all be a pain to someone who is determined to avoid headaches. Presently, printing on matte surfaces with the addition of Lyson Print Guard or printing on canvas are my two main concerns, so bronzing isn’t a really a factor for me.

Actually, though, come to think of it, the best solution for bronzing is paper choice. (Bronzing occurs because the ink sits on the surface of the paper without any absorbtion.) While it may occur with some papers, it won’t occur with numerous others. If you don’t mind a little experimentation, the most you really have to do is just switch papers and the problem is solved. (Sorry it took me a second to come up with this… like I said, it’s not a problem I encounter personally.)

As for Epson being the professional inkjet choice… Certainly lots of people (who can afford to spend that much on a digital studio) opt for Rolands, ColorSpans, etc., but these are wide-format printers that can easily exceed $20,000. At present, Epson is the most affordable professional solution for wide-format, and, obviously, the only choice for pigmented work in 13" and 24" printers. Expect that to change, however. Also, it’s likely that Epson will break the 44" barrier before too long, but I have no real info on that.

Lastly, Lawrence, you have really intrigued me with you comment about printers and inks that will blow our socks off. Frankly, I anticipate buying a wide-format printer quite soon, and I’m more than a little concerned what the next generation will offer. The way I look at it, such an incredible amount of progress has been made in such an short time, there’s no reason the assume the near future will be any different.

One thing that always intrigues me is talk of extra ink colors. As an artist used to mixing colors, I am only too aware of the limitations of CMYK, and even CcMmYKk. Some rather expensive wide-format printers use up to 12 colors, but, as yet, there are no more than 8-color systems (adding orange and green inks) available for pigment inks.

Anyway, I may be exceeding the scope of this thread, so I’ll stop there, except for one question. Lawrence, I realize that it’s possible to have advance knowledge and not be able to reveal details, but would you at least be able to say if your refernce is to the upcoming Canon pinters and inks or something entirely different?

Cheers,

Mike
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 14, 2003
Unfortunately, I can’t. I examined a series of prints which had no identies established, except I did spot a bronzed glossy, a dead giveaway.

So, at this point, I don’t know if what I saw was simply advanced inks, a totally different printing system or what combos.

Let me add one more caveat. It may be that what I saw that was so impressive could have been the result of a more sophisticated profile on present day materials. No way to know.
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 14, 2003
The plot thickens…
MB
Mike Botelho
Sep 15, 2003
….indeed it does.

Lawrence, a good profile makes a lot of difference, but I doubt that your previous experiences involved profiles so poor that a decent profile would suddenly make that much of an impression on you, if you know what I mean.

It makes me wonder even more about the upcoming Canon printers/inks. I’m not saying what you saw was from Canon equipment, but they are indeed a hell of a company and not content to be 2nd best. So, their impending products are interesting in themselves.

If, however, what you saw came from new Epson inks or technology, that’s no less interesting either, not to mention that it would promise even more change in the near future.

Let’s face it, Epson sure isn’t going to stand still just because they’re doing so well. Though they have a lock on 13" and 24" printers that use pigmented inks, they are sure to expect Canon to be on their way with stiff competition. I’m sure they will want to stay ahead of the field.

Not to mention that they have made such inroads in the wide-format market with the 7600 and 9600. I’m sure they are correctly anticipating that they can grab even more of the market from Roland, Mimaki, ColorSpan, etc. if they come up with a something like a 60" printer that is as much of a bargain as the 9600.

(Come to think of it, isn’t Epson due to replace the 10600 with something that would actually induce people to go out and buy something more expensive than the 9600?)

Of course, I personally hope that they realize that extra ink colors will give them the most inroads into markets from signage to fine arts printing.

Yes, I want to buy a large-format printer… now wouldn’t an Epson 60" 12-color printer that costs half of a Colorspan be a absolute dream come true.

Now that I would go into hock for!

Mike
MB
Mike Botelho
Sep 15, 2003

P.S. – Sorry, Cindy, to stray so far from the original topic. My enthusiam got the better of me!

Good luck with your choice, and, if you end up with an Epson, just remember to swap papers if you get any bronzing problem.

Mike
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 15, 2003
I think that, given both printers producing equally acceptable prints, both quality and longevity, the canon should come on strong, because of the enormous speed advantage.

One problem they must overcome is that, on gloss or semi-gloss, the scan lines are slightly more obvious than the Epson. Not in anyway interferring, but it establishes a bit more quickly that you are looking at an injet print. I thought that the 9100 would have taken care of this, but it didn’t. I don’t worry much about it as I print almost exclusively on matte, and if I want true photo quality, I go to a contone printer, like Chromira. It’s built into the price I ask.
B
Bernie
Sep 16, 2003
Mike,

…if you end up with an Epson, just remember to swap papers if you get any bronzing problem.

If you want glossy prints with no bronzing, what paper would you switch to?

— Burton —
B
Bernie
Sep 16, 2003
Lawrence,

One problem they must overcome is that, on gloss or semi-gloss, the scan lines are slightly more obvious than the Epson. Not in anyway interferring, but it establishes a bit more quickly that you are looking at an injet print. I thought that the 9100 would have taken care of this, but it didn’t.

That sounds like you are saying the Canon has noticeable banding. To me that would be a serious problem, a deal breaker in fact. Epson’s MicroWeave and Super MicroWeave technology effectively makes banding impossible even if head tracking is imperfect.

Epson’s Micro Piezo ink jet technology is also in Epson’s favor, in that Epson’s ink delivery is a purely mechanical piston actuation as contrasted with bubblejet technology which depends on boiling the ink to expel it through the nozzles. Just requiring than an ink be "boilable" potentially eliminates some candidate colors that Epson could use.

When Canon converts to solid pigment inks I can forsee some knotty problems for them trying to boil a "sludge" or slurry to propel it through their nozzles. And uncoated solid pigment particles would also be potentially abrasive to the nozzles. Unless they license some Epson patents, Canon pigment printers have some tough technical hurdles in my opinion.

— Burton —
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 16, 2003
Barely perceptible is not noticeable banding. If you are a purist, then by all means, run with your conclusions. I have to look very carefully to see it, and I can also saw it in some Epson prints. Major cleaning was called for. But since I don’t do gloss or semi, I never saw it on the Canon. In fact, the person I purchased it through also uses a Canon, and he never saw it until I pointed it out.

I have a feeling it is paper dependent. I don’t see it on Canon Paper Pro. You don’t want to use the glossy setting on the Canon for anything but the Canon paper. Leave it set on Matte.
Anyway, look for yourself and see.

Banding problems exist in many places. For instance, my Epson 3200 will, under certain conditions of density, final gray value and sharpening, show banding. Drives me crazy.

So far as I know, the only way to really get rid of it in scanning is have the negs scanned on a drum.

And, to assure no digital artifacts due to banding or screening in the print. go to contone printing.

Here’s another caveat:

Drum scans are usually oil mounted, then the neg or transparency is cleaned. I re scanned a negative I had scanned several years ago, on a drum, with fabulous results. It still is my reference scan. So, I decided to compare and re scan on the 3200. I had serious banding problems, and assumed the scanner had gone south. But, the banding looked different. So, I took the neg to have it test scanned on an Imacon. The lines were still there. So, we illuminated the film using dark field illumination and there they were. Subtle marks on the surface of the emulsion and the back left by the cleaning or some other action of the drum scanning process.

It is good the scan was so great, as the neg is now useless. it is one of my best images too, dammit!

So now, when I see such evidence, I look at the surface with proper illumination to see if there is some damage there.

I also wonder about the bubble technology for pigments. However, if the ink technology is apace with other areas of technology, there may be some surprises there. Heating the inks would have some effect, but it may be a good effect.

Oh, I talked with a supplier about the Canon pigmented system. He says that it is slated for some large scale printers. For desktop, the scuttlebutt is that canon will have a pigmented type black ink in a new desktop to get deeper blacks on matte.

He also mentioned that HP has or will have a quad black printer. I gotta go look!
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 16, 2003
He also mentioned that HP has or will have a quad black printer. I gotta go look!

I don’t want to pee in anyone’s coffee, but I’d buy an HP for professional graphics work just before going to hell. I swear they don’t have a clue what we need. Just my opinion, couldn’t resist, beg forgiveness if I offend.
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 16, 2003
Gotta give folks another chace, Tony.

Even a clock that’s stopped………….

Get your $%^&^ out of my coffee!!!
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 16, 2003
Get your $%^&^ out of my coffee!!!

LMAO!
LH
Lawrence Hudetz
Sep 16, 2003
A quick search for HP quad black printers revealed nothing except third party possibilities.
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 16, 2003
Well, IMO, they could have the best, long lasting inks on the planet. When it comes to color management and paper handling, they’re an "also ran" in my book.
L
LeDeane
Sep 21, 2003
I use the Epson 2200 in my studio and love it. Its output is nearly identical to the traditional professional photographic prints. However, it is much slower than conventional photographic printing. It is also much more expensive to operate due to the tiny amount of ink in each of its 7 ink carts. I do a few prints and begin to change out the ink carts. Its very inconvenient and very expensive. Epson simply must increase the capacity of these carts. I suspose the same problem exists for the other brands of ink jets though. Next year will probably see some of these problems addressed. jc

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections