0
   

Whats a good photo quality wireless printer.

 
 
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 05:54 pm
I want to replace some HP printers with one good quality wireless printer that gives good DPI reso;ution and color clarity. I will use it for normal printing but also to support my photo habit with my Canons
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 3,910 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:01 pm
@farmerman,
FYI, you don't necessarily need a Canon in order to be compatible. I prefer Epson and there are quite a few wireless Epson models. Some or many are printer-combination (scanner/fax) or straight printers.

HP is excellent and it's awesome as an office printer (text) and reasonable as color photo printer. HP is slightly cheaper on inks but they all drink ink for lunch.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:17 pm
@farmerman,
What is the largest enlargement size you want it to print. Do you want a combo-printer or only a printer function?

If you insist on Canon I could recommend a model. Regardless, what are you looking to spend and what size and/or functionality level do you want?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 06:51 pm
@Ragman,
HP is the worst for ink use. Im not impressed ith their resolution and color integrity at all. Ive got one that was atopa the line last year and Ive got the thing all worn out feom topo maps and geology colored maps The sizes and mixes cost more than th printers/ I know about the compatabiity I was just making the point that I want some kind of printer that I can do good quality prints.
I guess Ill be doing no larger than 12 X 18. If I go larger, ill find AN iris setup and rent time.

I know that the Canons can be taught how to do mosaic prints like airphoto overlap.

If I was thinking economy Id go with Kodak because theyve figgered out how to keep the ink costs reasonable
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 10:01 pm
@farmerman,
Unless I missed it, you never specified if you need a combo printer. I'll assume that you don't want an all-in-one printers or a combo printer. I'll likewise steer you to an inkjet as most will render good-to-great color photos and do a decent job with text and/or in a combo in an image.

Most of the good color photo printers are somewhat costly to print - particularly if enlargement is needed; however, convenience and printing speed are also important.

Whether a printer can do mosaic printing seemlessly with invisible overlaps is dependent on a graphics program. Am I correct in saying that Pixma has a built-in capability? I'm pleading ignornace on that. I use graphics proggies like Photoshop or others that provide that function.

Some printers by pass the need for the computer as they don't need it as they've built-in interface panels and get commands to go straight from camera to printer. In that case buying a Canon Pixma would serve you best, but Epson can also do the task. You would to see them demoed to determine their convenience.

However, my preference is that I like tweaking the print using a graphics program so that functionality is useless to me.

*********************************************************

However, what matters most is the overall cost to own and keep in good repair. That is where it the rubber meets the road. The overall cost has to do with ink cost (as well as usage), dependability issues and prints not jamming and not neeeding endless cleaning cycles. Smaller printer mfrs companies are hard to locate ink cartridges a short while after the model has been out.

Personally, I'd not advise for a purchase of a Kodak printer 'cause as a corporation they're hanging on financially by a thread. Besides, they don't have a model that meets your stated requirements. Also, their support and ink availabilty could 'dry up' at any time. Laughing They're relatively inexpensive to operate, however, they're not very popular and especially out of the question as you require enlargements that go beyond snapshot (4x6).

By your comments, I see that you've very specific and intensive demands. I still would suggest basuically looking into Espon and Canon.

The overall cost vs quality is in favor of Epson. Mainly because as a photo quality printer, they're tops. I've owned 2 models of Epsons in 13 years. Ink use is high but overall the print quality is simply gorgeous and it is very dependable.

Epson Photo Stylus 3000 approx $600 (wireless connectivity and larger ink tanks) if you want 13 inch enlargements.

In addition to USB, the R3000 will have Ethernet and 802.11n wireless connectivity. A front feed, L-shaped paper path is designed to accommodate a wide variety of paper types. It's got the more sophisticated front control panel that allows computer-less printing.

Epson Stylus Photo R2000 @ $490 (wireless connectivity and USB and makes 13 inch prints)

As for Canon Pixma inkjets, I'd recommend for you to research more than I can provide. Try review on CNET.com

http://reviews.cnet.com/printers/


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 12:29 am
@Ragman,
Im actually more interested in your experience with the printer youve chosen. Hows the matte v gloss print color fidelity?
I use photoshop Elements cause it dos everything I want for my shots Im going to be using for publication. My editor only cares that I register what I want and then SAVE THE MEDIA CARD and ID it for sequencing.

Many shots I have of structure features are low in contrast and Im using the internal capabilites of My D-60 to up contrasts by installing a mask of slight color on one rock type. I can also enhance it bfore printing a "proof" . My only epxeriences have been with Iris for fiine art prints (I am not investing in one of these units when I know places wjere I can rent time on a Univeristy's IRIS). My hom printers have all been HP and I think their resolution sucks at their highest DPI.
Im sorta looking at Epson Canon KOdak and Toshiba. (No more HPs thank you, they are made for office use where resolution is secondary to print clarity.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 07:36 am
@farmerman,
As a prof photographer, my experience with Epson is that it's the best color printer. I've chosen carefully based on my needs for the best color on many surfaces, not only matte and glossy. I love printing some of my art prints on water color paper and my 2400 does that. I can';t spewak of any of the others whether they can do that.

I believe you will easily see a marked increase in resolution and color fidelity. I agree with generality that HP's printing market is mainly for office use and not the serious color printer.

I own the Espon Stylus R2400 a model from 5-6 yrs ago. Mine is not the fastest printer but I'm not complaining about that, new ones are 40% faster. FWIW, Epson 2000 and 3000 and my 2400 models print a very similar quality - 3000 being more convenient with ink tanks.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&sku=C11CA86201

Exhibition Quality Prints

"Unleash your creative inspiration with the advanced features and uncompromising quality of the Epson Stylus Photo R3000. This 13"-wide printer delivers the professional features you desire including high-capacity cartridges, networking and wireless connectivity, plus Advanced Media Handling. Epson UltraChrome K3® with Vivid Magenta pigment ink, combined with Epson's innovative MicroPiezo® AMC™ print head, enables the R3000 to produce gallery-quality black-and-white output, plus vivid color prints with breathtaking blues and violets. Offering the latest in wired and wireless networking, the R3000 makes it easy to print from anywhere in your home or studio. Now, you can produce stunning wide-format images and professionally showcase your work. "

---- ---- ----

•Industry-leading pigment ink technology — Epson UltraChrome K3 with Vivid Magenta Ink Technology for stunning color and black-and-white prints with intense blues and violets and improved skin tones
•Individual high-capacity ink cartridges — change cartridges less often with nine 25.9 ml individual ink cartridges
•Advanced Media Handling — offers consistent, reliable performance with front-in, front-out paper path; accommodates cut-sheet and roll paper in sizes up to 13" wide; supports photographic and fine art paper, canvas, art boards and CD/DVDs
•Unparalleled connectivity — Hi-Speed USB 2.0, wireless 802.11n and 100 Mbit Ethernet support
•Auto-switching Black inks — achieve the highest black density and superior contrast on glossy, matte or fine art papers from either Matte or Photo Black ink
•Leading-edge image-quality architecture — smoother color transitions and outstanding highlight and shadow detail with AccuPhoto™ HD2 imaging technology
•Precision 9-color, 8-channel print head technology — innovative MicroPiezo® AMC™, one-inch wide print head with ink-repelling coating for more accurate dot placement and reduced maintenance
•Professional control — Advanced Black-and-White Photo Mode to easily create neutral or toned black-and-white prints from color or monochrome images.


I've used a friend's 3000 in the past and find the sharpness (due to small pico-liter droplet size) and color rendering are breath-taking and similar or better than mine.

Once again because you're a serious user, I would toss out Kodak and Toshiba as they're not contenders for demanding users. You need to see printers demoed. The don't hold a candle to Canon or Epson.

Or just see the Canon and Epson prints. When you see an 11x14 you'll see vivid (not overly-saturated) color and crispness all the way to the edges and corners. Consistency, repeatability and reliability and some choices of papers and paperpaths for different-sized and thickness of papers.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 07:45 am
@Ragman,
you should be a salesman. I want an EPson now.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 07:56 am
@farmerman,
I've based my responses on the fact that you want a big enlargement 11x14 to 13 in print. Make no mistake - these are wide path printers. As such, they take up a fairly big footprint in your lab.

They have a relatively simple setup, but they take an initial chunk of $$$ change as the 3000 has 9 tanks (but are higher capacity 25 ml tanks over mine). However, as an improvement over my printer, they've eliminated the need for switching black ink tanks back and forth from matte black to glossy inks as it has auto-switching.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 08:04 am
@farmerman,
No better salesman exists than a satisfied customer. Oh yeah, one that makes money from the printer - 5 years and still counting. Ink thirsty yes...but never saw a disappointing image yet.

Did I say the prints are archival? No color fade for 75 to 100 years. For me that matters as gallery's insist on archival inks. I seem to recall you're an artist so this should matter to you. You can archive your painting master works for posterity.

If I had you here, you could print up an 11 in wide prints on my relatively slow printer in about 3.5 minutes. Don't quote me on this, but I believe with the 3000, printing the same image in anout 2 minutes. An approximation but close to the reality.

Oh ... and other opinions...check the 'Net articles...from other professional users, they drool over Epson's color. I've seen Canon Pixma and it's a close contender color-wise, too. View a print being made with both from the same image and you'll know how you want to go.

Final point: View the professional media awards. It has won many esteemed awards from the media:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&sku=C11CA86201

Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 08:27 am
@Ragman,
Oh yeah, as though that was not enough... the 3000 has a Color LCD display for editing computerlessly.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 09:44 am
@farmerman,
OK...I'll continue my reasearch after unabashedly praising the Epson 3000 to the high heavens.

I will amend my comments to say that I'm reading more on the comparable appropriate model of Canon Pixma. I believe Canon could be less ink-thirsty while maintaining the color quality, pirnt enlargement size choices, relative speed and convenience . I'll see if I can get an ink usage comparison.

Back shortly... with that info:

But in the meanwhile, here's an expert Printer User's opinion:

Customer Review


52 of 52 people found the following review helpful

THE perfect photo printer for serious amateur photographers., December 2, 2011
By Omega Man "Technoanalyst"This review is from: Epson Stylus Photo R3000 Wireless Wide-Format Color Inkjet Printer (C11CA86201) (Office Product)

At school I've been using an Epson Stylus Pro 3880 and have gotten kind of addicted to printing my photos. The R3000 is half the cost and almost exactly the same except for it's narrower 13" maximum print width (vs the 17" 3880). Both use the "UltraChrome K3 with Vivid Magenta" ink set which is the same one used by almost all of Epson's "Pro" line of printers. Honestly, I don't know why the R3000 isn't in their "Pro" line since it could reasonably be used by a pro who never needed to print anything wider than 13".

I printed some color test charts at the Sam's Club photo lab (which should be reasonable quality since they actually calibrate their printers at least once a day and when they change paper rolls) and on my R3000, then compared them to an actual X-Rite produced ColorChecker chart, and the output from the R3000 significantly beats the output from Sam's Fuji Frontier minilab photo printer. The Fuji Frontier print is noticeably duller with generally darker colors and a narrower range of saturated color reproduction. You don't have to be a color expert to see the difference.

For the R3000 the ink cost is about $1/ml which comes out to about $0.01 per square inch if you get it at a discount (search for "red river Cost of Inkjet Printing Epson R3000"). That makes a borderless 8x10 cost about $0.80 in ink, and a borderless 8.5x11" cost about $1 in ink. A sheet of Epson Ultra Premium Photo paper costs as little as $0.60 if you get it at a discount, so printing a borderless 8.5x11" ends up costing as little as $1.60 in supplies. (Not to mention that you can get third-party paper that's just as good or better than Epson's official paper for less money.)

The cheapest photo labs charge around $1.50 for an 8x10 (my local Sam's Club currently charges $1.46). If we use a whole 8.5x11 sheet of official paper and a full 8x10 worth of ink to print an 8x10, we get $1.40 in supplies per 8x10 which is slightly cheaper than even Sam's Club and significantly higher quality. Good third-party paper would be around $0.35/sheet meaning that you could also do as well as $1.15 per 8x10, maybe even better.

Admittedly though that doesn't incorporate the cost of the printer, which you won't have to incur if you just use a photo lab. If you bought the printer for say $800 and you've gotten your per-8x10 supply costs down to $1.15, then you'd need to print about 2,580 8x10's before your total costs started to get lower than Sam's Club's $1.46.

When you get larger than 8x10 though then the printer really starts to pay off. One place online that isn't too expensive and has a good reputation charges $6.30 for a 12x18 on glossy photo paper printed with a photographic lab process. It's possible to get decent 13x19" gloss ink jet photo paper (same stuff that costs $0.35/sheet for the 8.5x11) for about $1.50/sheet. 12x18" of ink costs you $2.16 so total cost for a 12x18 on the R3000 with that paper is $3.66. At that price you need to print 300 or so of these large prints before your prints start costing less than $6.30, and again the ink jet prints will have better color quality than the photographic process printer. You also have the entire lifetime of the printer to make all these prints that we're talking about. If you make on average about 10 8x10" prints every week then it would take about 5 years to make this cost back, but if you made two of the 12x18" prints per week then it would take about 2.8 years to brake even compared to the lower quality protographic process prints ordered online.

But none of these estimates take into account the value of the convenience and additional quality you get from having a modern photo inkjet printer right in front of you. Add in costs like transportation to pick up photos, time spent driving, any sort of cost of inconvenience by having to wait for prints to arrive in the mail, the additional value of better color quality, and other hard to quantify things then the real savings may be better. Depending on how much these costs add to the cost of photo lab prints, a decent ink jet printer like this might pay for itself much more quickly.

Still, you have to keep in mind that owning your own printer like this only makes sense if you're going to be doing a certain volume of printing. If you only ever print maybe 10 8x10s a month then the printer will never be worth it solely from a cost-per-print savings perspective. Also, if all you ever print is 4x6 then even just your ink cost without paper is going to be around 2.5x the cost of getting 4x6 prints made ata cheap online lab or drug store. So for small prints like 4x6 the printer will absolutely never pay for itself from the supply perspective, and probably not even from the convenience perspective.

The only problems I've heard of with this printer seem to involve priming the print head (pumping ink into the initially empty hoses that run from the ink cartridges to the print head, basically) and the printer going through unnecessary cleaning cycles, but Epson support is great about addressing these. My R3000 went though an unnecessary priming cycle when I first set it up, wasting about half the ink in the cartridges. Support got back to me in less than a day and offered to send me a full set of full replacement cartridges. I haven't seen anyone complaining of clogged nozzles or any of the usual inkjet problems.

The color gamut of the R3000 when used with the Ultra Premium Photo paper significantly exceeds the AdobeRGB colorspace in areas of dark blues and greens. This allows you to make the most of your camera's sensor capabilities IF you convert your RAW files into a format using the ProPhoto RGB color space (the most common one that actually holds those colors) AND print to the printer using proper color management with the appropriate ICC profile. Photo labs almost always require all files to be encoded as sRGB (which is smaller than both AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB), and printers like the Fuji Frontier have smaller gamuts than sRGB anyway, so they can't possibly achieve the wide range of colors that a high quality professional inkjet can when it's wielded by someone with sufficient color management skill.

Anyway, excellent printer, reasonable cost of ownership and operation, higher quality printing than you get at a photo lab, convenience, and excellent support from Epson. When you consider this part of your "digital darkroom" and compare its cost to the cost of materials and equipment you'd spend for an "old fashioned" film darkroom, the cost is quite reasonable. "
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 10:23 am
@Ragman,
So far I have reviewed the Canon Pixma Pro9000 Mark II at around $400-$450. all is good BUT it has no wireless connectivity.

Canon Pixma Pro 1 is way overkill for anyone except the pros who make lots of 8x10as or larger at around retail of $999-$1050.

I'm still sifting...

Ok.. that Canon Pixma model that is within a comparable category for you. As stated prior, it does not have WiFi, but it has Canon's Pictbridge software:

Canon Pixma Pro9000 Mark II
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 10:44 am
@Ragman,
I see no Canon Pixma that uses connectivity method other than their Pictbridge (direct-printing from camera). It is not Wi-Fi. I have no idea why Canon Pixma offers no Wi-Fi model in this price range for the advanced amteur or pro. It baffles me. Unless Canon has relinquished this advanced category to Epson, which I think is likely.

Also, Canon Pixma Pro9000 Mark II uses dye-based (start to fade in as little as 6-8 weeks) vs the pigment-based (more archival) inks of Canon Pixma Pro9500 Mark II.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 11:29 am
@Ragman,
There is currently an Epson 3000 rebate offer that might expire on 08/31/2012. That keeps the prices at $600 including the $150 rebate. I don't know if they'll extend it or if that's critically important to your decision-making process but I figure that I should inform you.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 03:47 pm
@Ragman,
Just got back home> Thanks for the info but I got a oriduct notice from Canon that stated that a WiFi was avaiilable (Theyve adv' abouy "wieless" in severql of their models

The dye v pigment inks is important.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:24 pm
@farmerman,
OK. I wish you good luck. I will repeat, it'd be good to see a demo of both printing enklarged color image. Notice the workflow and ease of changing papers types and/or sizes.

What model of Canon are you considering?

Sorry but what is oriduct?

Let me know if I can help any futher.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Clone of Micosoft Office - Question by Advocate
Do You Turn Off Your Computer at Night? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
The "Death" of the Computer Mouse - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Windows 10... - Discussion by Region Philbis
Surface Pro 3: What do you think? - Question by neologist
Windows 8 tips thread - Discussion by Wilso
GOOGLE CHROME - Question by Setanta
.Net and Firefox... - Discussion by gungasnake
Hacking a computer and remote access - Discussion by trying2learn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Whats a good photo quality wireless printer.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 05:46:37