Printers for Photos

tororosso

I was just wondering has anybody got a decent recommendation on a good enough printer for photos??/ I have a Dell All in One printer which is unreliable and the images always appear a bit darker than what they should be. I heard that the Epson printers are quite good and am just interested to hear has anybody got one here??

CabanSail

Epson do make good Photo Printers. The type you buy really depends on your expectation of quality.

The Prints being dark is probably not a problem with the printer. It is more likely to do with the Monitor Calibration. If your Monitor is not calibrated then your prints are not going to match what you see on the screen. This will be a problem with all printers, even sending photo's out.

tororosso

Thanks for the advice Cabansail I will have a look at the Epson Range. Ideally I would like a pretty good photo printer but it is mainly for A4 size sports prints so I would be happy to spend a bit just for reliability and image quality.

I must try to calibrate them at the weekend so. If the monitor was not calibrated correctly would that mean that the post processed image is not a true reflection of what will be printed?

gman2k

The Canon PIXMA MP640 got a good review (Best on Test) in the Photoplus magazine recently. I don't know what it was up against in that review however.

CabanSail

tororosso wrote: »

I must try to calibrate them at the weekend so. If the monitor was not calibrated correctly would that mean that the post processed image is not a true reflection of what will be printed?

You can get an idea by looking at the Histogram. Getting the monitor calibrated will make the images on the screen look similar to how they will print out.

Printing at home will be much more expensive than getting them done by a printing service when you take into account the capital outlay, paper, ink & wastage. You will get away with a 4 ink CMYK Printer if you are just doing colour but you need to go a lot higher if you want to do B&W.

BrookieD

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE what ever make you buy, HP/Epson/Brother/Canon buy original paper and ink, Do NOT waster your money on third party ink, it is a false economy.

Plus usage of third party ink if it damages the print head will void the warranty if that part breaks. So you end up paying to get a machine repaired and bang goes your saving on inks. And yes Printer manufactures can tell type of ink used.

BTW the Brother MFC6490CW A3 has a fantastic print result and printer, plus its the only A3 MFC on the market. it does use ink though if printing a shed load of photos. Still you could always purchase high yield ink carts and not regular ink carts.

gman2k

BrookieD wrote: »

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE what ever make you buy, HP/Epson/Brother/Canon buy original paper and ink, Do NOT waster your money on third party ink, it is a false economy.

Plus usage of third party ink if it damages the print head will void the warranty if that part breaks. So you end up paying to get a machine repaired and bang goes your saving on inks. And yes Printer manufactures can tell type of ink used.

BTW the Brother MFC6490CW A3 has a fantastic print result and printer, plus its the only A3 MFC on the market. it does use ink though if printing a shed load of photos. Still you could always purchase high yield ink carts and not regular ink carts.

Funny you should say that, I was buying refills today (HP45) from an outlet in Waterford.
I said to the guy in the shop that the orig inks are better, and he told me that he done a test at home on his own printer, and the refill gave better result than the orig!
Now he did prefix with the warning, of course I work here etc, etc, (he's not the owner) and they do sell original ink also.
so it depends on your machine, what the inks are, and what you are printing. I.E. if you are just printing MS word docs in B&W, then refill FTW!

BrookieD

Seriously no, refill inks are not made to the same spec as original, trust me on this, I am the Head of Customer support in ireland for Brother.

I see it day in day out users putting in third party ink and for the first few times everything is grand then the print head blocks and your screwed.


Its just not worth the repair charge to save a few quid on the price of the inks.

Plus, any refill shop will tell you your warranty is safe, its a half truth, we can prove ink did the damage and if you check your user guide it states if machine is damaged due to refill or third party ink then your warranty for this failure is shot to pieces, standard fair for any printer maker

stcstc

Brookie i do agree with you about 3rd party inks

BUT

if your doing simple stuff like word docs etc, and just A4. you can buy a printer for 30 euros from dunnes (canon) and you know what if it jams up with ink then so what just ditch the printer and buy another

I actually print professionally, and use 2 large format epsons and go through ink at a rate of knots

and i only use epson carts, but more to do with the longevity of the prints, than if the ink blocks. cos epson inks block like crazy anyway

mumof2

Thats something I'm looking for as well, a reliable printer for photos up to A3 in size so a brother MFC6490CW A3 is an option then?

Anyone else got one or ideas?

BrookieD

stcstc wrote: »

Brookie i do agree with you about 3rd party inks

BUT

if your doing simple stuff like word docs etc, and just A4. you can buy a printer for 30 euros from dunnes (canon) and you know what if it jams up with ink then so what just ditch the printer and buy another

Thats a very good point to be fair. very low end printers are dirt cheap so third party ink you can get away with, We dont get into that market at Brother so its not something i need to worry about so much.

Edit: http://www.amazon.com/Brother-MFC-6490CW-Professional-Wireless-Printer/product-reviews/B001AVPQ48 user reviews for MFC6490

SemperFidelis

I got an Epson R1900 a few weeks ago and it does up to A3+ or will print on a 13" roll. The prints are very good, much better than anything I've gotten from the online places.

I still find the prints are a bit darker printed than they are on a calibrated monitor but if I do a curves adjustment and make the print a bit lighter then it comes out just right.

stcstc

one thing to be carefull with the 1900, the inks are not the longest lasting, in terms of lightfastness, so just be carefull about selling prints to customers

Heebie

I don't believe that Brother makes inkjet printers that use archival (pigment-based) inks. (Brother's own literature available online only claims that their color laser printers and not their inkjets, are "archival".. although that seems to be a print lifespan of 15-20 years..which I wouldn't rate as archival because it's less than 50 years. Dye-based inkjet prints, such as you'd get from Brother and similar dye-based-ink inkjet equipment, generally have a print lifespan on the order of 5-10 years.)

This means if you print photos on them.. you have to print new copies in just a few years because they fade dramatically. (This goes for ALL non-archival inks.. anything that is not pigment-based, not just Brother gear. Most inks are dye-based, and thus are crap for printing photos. Archival, pigment-based inks are MUCH more expensive.)

One thing to note is that no-one makes a "multi-function" device (printer/copier/scanner) that uses archival (pigment-based) inks... so no multi-function device is actually suitable for photographic quality printing. If you want good photos.. don't get a multi-function device or a "general purpose" printer.. get one designed specifically for photographic printing that uses archival (pigment-based) inks. (I like the Epson R800 for up to A4 sizes.)

When it comes to printing high-quality.. you can either invest in a really good archival inkjet and really expensive papers, as well as the proper kit to produce custom colour profiles for the monitors and printer/ink/paper combinations you use.. (such as an i1 from Gretag MacBeth or a Colormunki) *OR* you need to calibrate your monitor (i1, Colormunki, Spyder etc..) and find a photolab that's invested in the right equipment (preferably digital imaging to RA-4 style wet-process photographic paper, followed by development in the proper chemistry, and/or inkjet type processes for larger prints) and who regularly re-calibrate their monitors and colour-profiles for all their paper regularly. (wet-process should be recalibrated weekly or so, a good archival inkjet at least monthly, and monitors preferably daily, but at least weekly. Labs that do this are rare) An archival photographic paper (Fuji Crystal Archive, Kodak Royal Gold etc..) will have a print lifespan well in excess of 50 years.. at a MUCH lower per-print cost than printing on inkjet exclusively. (on the order of 10-30 cent for a 5x7" photo, versus €1-2 for the same size on a good archival inkjet.)

Most after-market inks are dye-based with a print lifespan of 3-5 years, and much higher levels of impurities that will clog print heads etc..

Although, there are some nice custom ink sets. There are a few companies out there making kits that will take as many as 7-8 different shades of grey and use that to make greyscale (black & white) images of amazing quality... those aftermarket inks I don't mind at all. BUT.. when you buy them.. they do let you know that you're voiding the warranty on your kit by using them. In those cases, you've probably bought the printer expressly to use that ink, warranty be damned.

When you shop for a printer, be careful to check the ink types. Epson makes "photo" printers that use pigment-based archival inks..and some that used dye-based crap inks. The Canon Pixma series similarly has both types. (as well as dye-sublimation printers, which I'd recommend avoiding as well.) So.. even within a series of printers from any manufacturer, look for the terms "archival" and "pigment", as well as the expected print-lifespan.

You also need to consider the paper you're using. Almost all "print lifespan" ratings are figured for printing on "cotton rag based paper".. most papers aren't cotton rag.. and most aren't going to see the same print lifespan as cotton rag. (money is generally printed on a cotton-rag type paper.. it's very durable. Crane Museo is a really nice rag paper made by the same company that makes the paper for U.S. currency, for example.)
Glossy papers will almost always have a shorter print lifespan than matte papers. (because the shiny finish actually ages, shrinks, fades, and deteriorates in other ways such as becoming porous... where as cotton rag just gets dirty.)

If your photos aren't so important to you that you need them to be archival.. then by all means print on whatever you want to.
(although.. remember that going to your local photolab helps keep them in business... it actually costs you less money than if you print at home.. and because their waste products are paper dust and bleach & silver-laden water [which is mainly treated, the silver reclaimed & recycled into more photographic chemicals/emulsions] it's probably more ecologically-conscious to go to your local photolab as well. [and if you're a regular..they might pay more attention when developing your photos... or they might do a Robin Williams in One Hour Photo.. EEK!])

Heebie

Epson Stylus Pro 3800 or 4880.

mumof2 wrote: »

Thats something I'm looking for as well, a reliable printer for photos up to A3 in size so a brother MFC6490CW A3 is an option then?

Anyone else got one or ideas?

Heebie

That's just not true. The 1900 uses T-series Ultrachrome inks.. on good paper prints from an R1900 should last 80-100 years if displayed behind UV protective glass. On crap paper it should last 50 years.

stcstc wrote: »

one thing to be carefull with the 1900, the inks are not the longest lasting, in terms of lightfastness, so just be carefull about selling prints to customers

Dara Robinson

tororosso, the main question should be put to you (I have not seen anyone ask or you post it up) ... How much do you want to spend?

Until then I have one recommendation. Stay away from Lexmark. The cost of their inks do not reflect the quality. Personally I think they are a rip off.

Epson have some great printers and my house mate has an A3 one which is excellent
The main question really is how much you can or want to spend.
If you are serious about printing quality I would recommend getting a screen calibrator and dont buy any plasma screens as they cant be calibrated properly (or so I am lead to believe). But the key is screen calibration. You could have the best screen, PC (apple or what ever), best software and a 5 grand printer but if whats being displayed on your screen does not reflect whats actually on your computer its all a waste. Monitors, TV's etc all degrade over time. Even brand new ones from Apple designed for printers and designers will be off, most certainly way less than something from Lidl but it will still be off.
My recommendation would be a ColorMunki as they are reliable and relatively cheap

I would also agree with BrookieD about original ink suppliers. Unless your printing from a €30 printer in B&W but thats not what we are talking about.