« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 18 posts | 
by Kelly on Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:23 pm
User avatar
Kelly
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2382
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Hello - I bought the Epson R2400 several years ago, and it died after a few years of slight use. Since I had a bunch of ink cartridges, I found another R2400 that had only been slightly used. That started leaking ink all over, and I took it to a local repair shop where I was told that it needed a new print head, which isn't available now on such an old printer. Neither one had been used heavily, so I'm not thrilled with their durability.

So, now I'm starting to look at other options. I rarely print larger than 11 x 14, so despite all the glowing commentaries on the 3880, it is beyond my needs (and budget). 

These 3 printers seem like they'd meet my needs. Are there others I should consider?

The price on the Canon PIXMA PRO-100 is only $399 at B&H, and then there's a $300 rebate. The price seems too good to be true, so what's the catch? I don't see many Canon printers discussed here, so I'm wondering how the quality compares with Epson.

The 3000 is about $100 more than the 2880, but the ink cartridges are more than double the size, so the price difference may disappear quickly.

I'd appreciate any and all suggestions. Thanks!
Kelly O'Neill
 

by Royce Howland on Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:04 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
The Canon Pixma PRO-100 is the lowest end of the Canon's desktop photo printer models, which also include the PRO-1 and PRO-10. The price is too good to be true in the same sense it is for all of these small format printers... the printer itself is a loss-leader, while the company expects to make back its money on paper and ink. Especially the latter.

The PRO-100 is not a great comparison to the two Epson models you mention, because the PRO-100 is running an 8-ink system based on dyes. Both of the Epson models you mention are running the K3 9-ink pigment system; the 2880 model is the original K3 while the 3000 model uses K3 + Vivid Magenta which basically gives a bit more colour gamut. As you may know, dye-based inks fade much faster than pigment-based inks. If dyes are used on carefully selected papers then their longevity is better, but still not in the same league as pigment inks. Pigment inksets normally permit printing on a much broader array of media with excellent longevity on any good paper. That's much less true with dyes. My first printer was a Canon i9900 dye-based unit, and while it was okay, I switched to pigment ink printers and never looked back.

Still, whether you care about longevity or not is up to you, based on things like whether you sell your work or keep it just for yourself, etc. If you didn't particularly care about longevity you could look at the Epson 2000 instead which is an 8-ink dye-based printer more comparable to the Canon PRO-100. This would give you a feature-for-feature comparison. Of course, the Canon PRO-100 still has that remarkable $399 less $300 rebate price tag. The economics of these small format printers are dominated by ink use and then ultimately by failure & replacement of the device. But for a $99 printer, you can afford to buy some ink... and not have to worry overly much about the future maintenance cost I suppose, though the cost of sending these cheap devices into the landfill will ultimately bite us in the butt.

I have just finished some extensive use of the Canon PRO-1 recently, which would be the pigment-based model in that series that compares more directly to the Epson 2880 or 3000. It produces very good prints from its 12-ink pigment set, and I really like the look of the inks on all the media I tried. I quickly created some custom paper profiles with a ColorMunki Photo and the results were excellent. So for print quality I give it very high marks, and its print speed was good. It's also exceedingly quiet. But I still found it somewhat aggravating to use. It has a seemingly wannabe-Apple-inspired interface design that is extremely minimalist, and as a result I never felt like I knew what the printer was doing or how to control it. I prefer controls with a little more information than 3 buttons labled without text and two different colours of flashing lights within them. Plus, the printer was frustratingly slow at a number of things (such as power on, which always seemed to take forever). And despite its somewhat larger cartridge size it always seemed to be running out of one ink or another. Any small cart system would feel that way for me though, after being used to the much larger 220 ml cartridges on my Epson 4880.

Canon print head design is significantly different than Epson uses, and this may have bearing on long-term reliability and cost of maintenance. Canon (and HP) heads are thermal designs, and are intended to be somewhat consumable and user-replaceable for moderate cost. They also tend to clog a lot less frequently or harshly because of the thermal design. Epson heads are cold piezo designs, and are intended to last for the life of the printer. They are not user replaceable and not cheap to replace... which basically translates as "life of the printer = when the head dies, the printer dies". And the cold piezo design does mean some people struggle a lot with head clogs which burns a lot of high-cost ink in frequent cleaning cycles.

Having said that, my old Canon i9900 had an expensive trip to the repair shop, so I don't think one really buys a small format printer like this with a great chance of long-term durability. They're just a short distance away from disposable consumer devices, really. It's not until you get into the more expensive larger format desktop or floor models that you find machines designed for long-term, high-volume use.

So, there's some info to think about. It's not a clear win either way, Canon vs. Epson. These days I think it is a 2-horse race, at least in the areas where Canon fields a model that goes head-to-head with Epson. Previously Epson had the game pretty much to itself, but not now. Unless you simply go for the super cheap price of the Canon PRO-100 after rebate, and call it a day, it will come down to some other feature or cost consideration of the other models...
Royce Howland
 

by Kelly on Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:55 am
User avatar
Kelly
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2382
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Royce, thanks so much for the comprehensive, detailed advice. This is extremely helpful.
Kelly O'Neill
 

by JHaagsma on Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:34 pm
JHaagsma
Forum Contributor
Posts: 368
Joined: 3 Nov 2003
the Epson R2000 also uses pigment ink, but with gloss optimizer, making it a bit more suitable  for printing on glossy papers. Also there is no ink loss when switching between photo black and matte black with this printer.
 

by ahazeghi on Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:38 pm
User avatar
ahazeghi
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6033
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Don't buy Epson R3000, I have one and it's a piece of cra** IMO. The print quality is excellent when it works, but it doesn't work for me 8 out of 10 times. it rejects thick paper many times before it finally loads it, the WiFi never works and every time I turn it on it spends 15 min making noises cleaning nozzles etc. even if it had been used on the same day. it hangs up during printing regularly costing you ink and paper. It takes a lot to get one print out of this piece of junk, one time I spent one hour making one print. The mechanics of this printer are just horrible IMO. it's like a flimsy cheap toy. I hate it so much that I stopped printing and I want throw it out of the window. shame on Epson.

Buys something else...save yourself the trouble.
 

by bradmangas on Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:03 pm
User avatar
bradmangas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 278
Joined: 15 Feb 2013
First of all Royce gave some great information.
 
I purchased the Pixma Pro-100 a few months ago for $369 and received the $300 rebate which to me the purchase was a no brainer. Sure a set of ink cost $125 but what photo printer out there comes with cheap ink? You will pay hundreds for any brand of replacement ink so the cost of ink just comes with the territory.
The Pro-100 produces beautiful prints so the question always comes back to the dye vs pigment issue. 

Dye inks make for more vibrant prints, clog less and are typically less expensive. Pigment inks claim to fame is fade resistance. The Chromalife 100+ inks which the Pro-100 uses are rated at 300-year album storage, 30-year light fastness, and gas fastness of 20 years when properly displayed or stored. I'm not sure why that is an issue. 

Do we want our prints to last 100 years without fading, well sure but lets be realistic about that. If a customer calls me up in 20 years or even 10 years and says hey I think the print I bought from you 10 years ago has off gassed a little bit or I think it has faded a little compared to what I remember it looking like 10 years ago, I mean really? I will more than happily print a replacement for them. Sure it is not impossible it could happen but so are a hundred other things that could effect the print that we have absolutely no control over. I seriously doubt this will ever be a problem. So to me this need for 100 year fade resistance of a print is a somewhat silly and extremely over reactionary issue. Honestly I am not that concerned about what my prints will look like in 2113.
 

by John Guastella on Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:01 pm
John Guastella
Forum Contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
So to me this need for 100 year fade resistance of a print is a somewhat silly and extremely over reactionary issue. Honestly I am not that concerned about what my prints will look like in 2113.
+1.  The whole discussion about the longevity of photo prints - and specifically the issue of dye vs. pigment printers -- is just another example of the extremism (or what I like to refer to as "gear snobism") so common in internet photography forums.  I have no doubt that any of the higher end photo printers will produce prints that will last at least several decades, which should satisfy 99.9% of users.

John
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:41 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Woo-hoo! I'm quite happy to be known as a silly, over-reactionary, extremist, snob of a photo printer. :) I ask my customers to turn over their hard-earned cash to buy my work, and I do care how it looks to them 1, 5, 10 and yes even 100 years from now. Why shouldn't I care? I don't intend to produce anything but the best work I can at any point in time, and I don't plan to have to print replacements because the materials I chose were not up to snuff. But more than the fear of having to take the cost of re-printing work, I simply want to put out the best effort I can, for my purposes.

Pigment-based printers are the mainline non-consumer photo printer models from all 3 major manufacturers; none of them make dye-based photo printing models above low-cost 13" desktop models. There's a good reason for that, based on materials science and borne out by longevity tests. Yes, some of the modern OEM dye inksets with carefully chosen media can do relatively well. But pigment is better over-all in terms of longevity; and when dye goes south, it does so quickly and harshly. That's why I choose to print with pigment inks.

Visual artists know this as well. Surfing around the web recently for a printing workshop I'm doing, I came across a fine art paint company's web site where they state this: "The lightfastness of soluble dyes in paint or ink is poor to moderate. They are therefore not used in products for artists. A painting must be seen, and light is necessary for this; the colours must therefore be durable. For the illustrator or hobby artist lightfastness is not so important. An illustration is printed, after which the original can be kept in a dark place; children and hobby artists do not have the same requirements as artists when it comes to the durability of colours. Due to their solubility dyes are highly suited for colouring thin liquids with a particular transparency, for example children's squash, as well as transparent inks." A bit bluntly worded, and I personally wouldn't be dismissive of all dye users by referring only to "children and hobby artists". But it gets the point across. This is not just some conspiracy by photo printer companies to sell a more expensive type of ink that people don't really need.
http://www.talens.com/information/frequ ... tfastness/
http://www.talens.com/information/pigme ... s-vs-dyes/

Others' mileage may vary, that's the great thing about photography -- people can enter at any point and progress to virtually any point based on their own balances of effort, cost, quality, intended purpose, etc. I've spent plenty of time researching and testing to arrive at the conclusions I have for my own work. I encourage others to do the same. The two main research sources I look at are Wilhelm Imaging Research and more so Aardenburg Imaging & Archives. I find the Aardenburg approach and their reporting of results more informative & useful.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/

Based on Aardenburg's test results, here are some examples. They place a range of longevity (summarizing a bunch of info) for the Epson 1400's dye inkset on Epson's own premium photo luster paper of 6 - 18 years, and 13 - 20 years on Red River "pro" satin. Canon's older Chromalife dye inkset is rated 3 - 12 years on Canon's own photo paper pro which is a glossy stock. These ratings are the number of years under average household lighting before noticeable fading and/or colour shifts will be seen -- not the number of years until you can no longer recognize the print. Aardenburg uses a more conservative rating than does Wilhelm; and then plots out the breakdown over a much longer run of time past where the first visible change starts to be seen. Aardenburg is targeting their info for people who have a greater degree of care over the visual stability of their print media.

Now, the newest dye inksets are better; and using really good paper also can help as shown by the Aardenburg results for Canon Chromalife ranging from 22 - 43 years on Ilford resin-coated glossy or luster media. I guess I would ask how many people printing with dye inksets understand the interaction of the dye with the paper they're printing on, and with the importance of anti-UV measures in framing and/or lighting the work on display? Either way, in the general case dye is still a ways off from a good pigment ink on good media where the first signs of noticeable fading or colour shifting starts to initially appear typically after quite a few decades under display conditions -- not sealed in storage in a dark room.

Is this all a bunch of meaningless mumbo-jumbo? Perhaps; only each photographer can decide the relevance for their own work. But I've seen these effects myself in normal use, not test labs, and I've been printing seriously only for ~8 years. I started with a Canon dye-based printer (i9900) and switched to Epson K3 pigment-based printers a couple of years later after I saw what was happening with my papers and prints, and did some research to understand why.

Speaking of research, I did misspeak above. It looks like in going from the Epson R1900 to the R2000, Epson changed the ink set. The new "Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss 2" inks appear to be fully pigment; the previous "Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss" inkset was a mix of pigment & dye as far I was able to tell. Epson is still kind of cagey in how they describe Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss 2, especially in comparative descriptions with Ultrachrome K3 and their other pigmented inksets. So I'm not 100% sure... but in any event the new inkset should perform better.
Royce Howland
 

by Kelly on Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:58 pm
User avatar
Kelly
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2382
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Whoa, I didn't mean to unleash fireworks here! I do appreciate all the advice. Thank you very much.

I ordered the Canon Pixma Pro-100. At this point, most of my prints are for family and friends. For the approximately $500 price difference, I figured I could order prints from WHCC or another quality shop on the rare occasion that I might have an opportunity to sell something. Hopefully, by the time this printer dies, I'll be able to justify an investment in an archival printer.
Kelly O'Neill
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:19 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Kelly wrote:Whoa, I didn't mean to unleash fireworks here! I do appreciate all the advice. Thank you very much.
No worries, you didn't unleash the fireworks. It's just one of those topics... :)
I ordered the Canon Pixma Pro-100. At this point, most of my prints are for family and friends. For the approximately $500 price difference, I figured I could order prints from WHCC or another quality shop on the rare occasion that I might have an opportunity to sell something. Hopefully, by the time this printer dies, I'll be able to justify an investment in an archival printer.
A perfectly reasonable approach. I'm not telling anybody they should buy a given piece of hardware. I am advising people to think about the the balance of effort, cost, quality, etc. they want to adopt for their own purposes in making prints. I actually advise people all the time not even to buy any kind of printer, because for the amount they plan to print it's likely going to be all 3 of cheaper, better & less frustrating to get a service to do them all.

I follow similar advice myself. While I do run 17" desktop models and print my own smaller work, I use a trusted third-party to print larger pieces or more specialized things like K7 carbon. As much as I love printing and try to constantly improve in the craft, there's no way I'm going to deal directly with large format machines at this point, in my own home "studio"...
Royce Howland
 

by bradmangas on Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:52 pm
User avatar
bradmangas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 278
Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Well I'm pretty sure Royce a-matter-of-factually proved the point. Fact or fiction, only science knows. And just to be clear, I don't recall anyone calling you a snob to begin with. And again, good information.
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:15 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Read the replies above, Brad. Your use of the phrase "somewhat silly and extremely over reactionary issue" and John's "just another example of the extremism (or what I like to refer to as "gear snobism") so common in internet photography forums" are right there. Now, everyone is welcomed to their own opinion. I've got a thick skin and don't care what people think of my work or why I make it the way I do.

But people come to NSN to find good info about improving their work and helping to make good decisions. Info that's based on experience and well-researched facts is always helpful. Personal opinions are also welcomed. Just frame them more constructively, that's all. For the most part this site is not populated with silly reactionaries and extremist gear snobs. We have a ton of very well-grounded info on here. If you're going to throw out statements advising people one way or another, be prepared to debate your viewpoint... :)
Royce Howland
 

by Royce Howland on Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:36 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Here's a bit of book-end longevity info from Aardenburg's test results. As I mentioned above, they put the point of noticeable fading / colour shifts occurring by a range of 6 - 18 years on the Epson R1400 dye-based printer with Epson's own premium photo luster resin-coated paper. This is a paper that many Epson printing folks use quite commonly.

The Epson R3800 pigment-based printer was released right around the same time as the R1400. Aardenburg's test results for it, using the same methodology, place the first noticeable fading / colour shifts happening by a range of 55 - 92 years on the same Epson premium luster paper. So the pigment vs. dye ink makes a big difference on the same paper.

If we swap out the paper for Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk on the Epson 3800, its initial longevity rating is ranked by Aardenburg at more than 140 years, again under the same simulated average household lighting conditions. This is for what is presumably a B&W image printed with Epson's Advanced B&W driver mode (ABW), so that might influence longevity ratings by not using some of the full range of coloured pigment inks. Aardenburg results don't have a lower bound on longevity yet in this case, because the paper hasn't completed its test run. So far after 140 simulated years it hasn't crossed their threshold of initial observable fading / colour shifts.

But in any event, in this specific case we have two printers of the same era, with 2 inks and 2 papers to consider. On the extreme end, the lower bound of longevity is 6 - 18 years to the first noticeable fading / colour shifts. On the other extreme end, it's over 140 years and still counting. If you were looking to print B&W photos, this difference is not small, and on the short end it's not way out in the theoretical future.

Both of these printers were introduced in 2006. Dyes have progressed, so have pigments and in fact so have paper choices. I wish Aardenburg had all the interesting combinations of printers, inks, papers, etc. to play with but unfortunately they don't. Their testing is dependent on grass-roots funding to support running their methodology on targeted combo's of ink and paper. So their coverage is spotty, particularly for dye-based inks which evidently their supporters haven't been greatly keen to see tested so far. Even so, the general underlying principle remains at play...

... but each person must decide for themselves whether it's something to factor into their printing plans, or not.
Royce Howland
 

by Mark Picard on Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:20 am
User avatar
Mark Picard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Location: Northern Maine
Royce Howland wrote:
... but each person must decide for themselves whether it's something to factor into their printing plans, or not.


It ceases to amaze me that people will complain about what essentially is abundant and invaluable information on this website (that you can either take or leave in your final decisions about issues or purchases)! I tend to think that much of the information or advice is sometimes over the heads of many viewers, so they tend to dismiss the info as "gear snobs". I personally LOVE all this information as it leads to better well-informed decisions on my part when trying to figure something out. And yes, many times I fall in that "over my head" category! But when that happens I instead get inspired and find that I want to learn more about the subject at hand, so I research it further. 

Keep up the good work Royce (and all the others on this great site), and please, please keep all your great expertise, opinions and advice coming!!!  I for one really appreciate it! "Noli nothis permittere te terere" ("Don't let the bastards get you down!")
Mark Picard
Website:  http://www.markpicard.com
Maine Photography Workshops
 

by signgrap on Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:02 pm
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: 1 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
Mark I agree Royce and all the NSN moderators do a wonderful job of keeping members informed and on the right track. 
Thank you all for your hard work and informative replies on complex issues and very technical subjects.
Dick Ludwig
 

by bradmangas on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:28 pm
User avatar
bradmangas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 278
Joined: 15 Feb 2013
A forum such as this is absolutely no place for personal attacks on others for voicing an opinion. When saying "somewhat silly and extremely over reactionary issue" in reference to a print lasting 100 years I did not realize I could offend another. I apologies to Royce and anyone else whom may have been offended for saying such a thing. 

To me the seriousness in which one approaches this craft should not be measured by whether they put dye ink on paper vs pigment no more than if they create photographs with a point and shoot vs a Mamiya but again that is just my opinion and not shared by all. Obviously that did not come across and worse I may now have just become a gear snob for making light of the seriousness of the subject, kinda funny how that worked out. I again must apologies for stating only an opinion when much more factual information was called for. I really never thought there would be such a strong opinion to my opinion. I must do a better job at self moderation. For the third time and at the risk of being redundant thank you Royce for all the great information.
 

by Kelly on Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:08 pm
User avatar
Kelly
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2382
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Mark Picard wrote: wrote:It ceases to amaze me that people will complain about what essentially is abundant and invaluable information on this website (that you can either take or leave in your final decisions about issues or purchases)! I tend to think that much of the information or advice is sometimes over the heads of many viewers, so they tend to dismiss the info as "gear snobs". I personally LOVE all this information as it leads to better well-informed decisions on my part when trying to figure something out. And yes, many times I fall in that "over my head" category! But when that happens I instead get inspired and find that I want to learn more about the subject at hand, so I research it further. 

Keep up the good work Royce (and all the others on this great site), and please, please keep all your great expertise, opinions and advice coming!!!  I for one really appreciate it! "Noli nothis permittere te terere" ("Don't let the bastards get you down!")
I completely agree with Mark. I so appreciated benefiting from Royce's practical experience and knowing the differences between the various printer models since I was having trouble sorting through the hype in the promotional materials. Even though I went with the printer that is clearly the poorest quality of the bunch, I did it with my eyes wide open and knowing all the trade-offs. I'm glad to know that I can't rely on this printer for archival prints and that I will need another service when that is needed. Since my income doesn't come from photography and I have plenty of other demands on my budget, this seemed the best choice for me right now.

I did a print last night for a friend, and had a hard time getting it right, but did after the fifth try.  

I also value all the other information available here, thanks to all the thoughtful people here who share their insights and experiences, that helps me strive to reach a higher level in my photography - so I might be able to justify the investment in a better printer in the future. Thanks to Royce, other moderators and contributors.
Kelly O'Neill
 

by DOglesby on Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:23 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
I personally think print longevity is critical. I don't want to sell something that will disappoint someone during their lifetime and I'd like to give them the opportunity to pass it down their family. Customers don't always think of these things when it comes to prints. I think there's an assumed permanence. A good business will look out for the best interest of their customers and going above and beyond on print longevity is one way to do that.
Cheers,
Doug
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
18 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group