On Mar 23, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I'd avoid the Epson and would go with HP or Canon. The ink cost
> savings are
> huge. Epson used to rule the world of inkjet printing, but last
> year when I
> was researching these printers for my own purchase, there was no way
> I could
> get the numbers to work for the Epson. The per-print cost is so far
> out of
> line (especially when you consider the wastage the Epsons are known
> for),
> that it is almost laughable.
Hum. Has not been my experience. In fact, as I read the reviews of the
Canon and HP printers, the reviewers seem to be saying, sometimes
between the lines, that the two are up, coming and challenging Epson,
but they aren't there yet.
Most of the wastage criticism I've read about Epsons has to do with
swapping glossy black for matte black cartridges, and it's true, the
cost is horrendous. My solution is to print exclusively on matte
paper. I never do glossy work. The more I view framed pictures hanging
on walls, the more sure I am in my decision to stick with matte.
Esteemed Wife and I were in a local restaurant last week, which, along
with good food, features my photos, those of another photographer, and
a painter's prints. When viewed up close or from a distance, the other
photographer's glossy prints tend to look wavy, have hot spots from
lighting, and the double reflection--from the print and the glass--
gets in the way of enjoyment. Matte prints, on the other hand, do not
look wavy, do not have hot spots, and don't suffer from double-
reflection syndrome. I'm not saying matte-only is for everyone, it's
just the way I do it. And I _loathe_ non-reflective glass. (I should
add that in some cases, the prints actually are wavy, as in not well-
dried before framing, but in most cases, the wavy look is an optical
illusion based on reflective qualities of glossy surface vs. matte
surface.)
As for per-print costs, that's the holy grail of print geeks. There is
no way no how you can accurately figure a per-print cost with any
printer save the one your lab uses, and you only know that because
they send you a bill. <g> Most, if not all, photographers do so much
fiddling and piddling with their prints and print in so many different
sizes that to try to figure an accurate number for per-print just
ain't possible. You can get in the ball park, but you ain't gonna get
a hit.
My Epson 4800 has been working almost flawlessly for more than three
years now. And I just retired the 2200 I bought seven years ago.
(Six?) Occasionally, for no good reason, one of the colors will clog
and I'll have to run a little cleaning. But this doesn't burn a lot of
ink and I am back in business in a few minutes. True, if I have to do
a real nozzle job, it will burn up the ink, but I've done it twice in
three years.
I can see a replacement down the line, but I'd need to see some
extremely impressive information before I'd switch to Canon or HP. And
while it's true the profiling features are nice, they don't amount to
much if the final prints are "challenging" Epson rather than "clearly
superior" to Epson.
All of this said, I would second your comments about outsourcing to a
good lab if you don't do a _lot_ of printing. You can buy a whole
bunch of very nice prints for the cost of a wide-carriage printer and
its consumables. But if I just had to have a 13" printer, I'd go with
the Epson 2880. I've read too much too good about it to forego it. It
costs more, but you get what you pay for.
But then obviously it's different strokes for different folks, your
mileage may vary, and in my humble opinion. <g>
--Bob Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|