Previously I had asked about the 9500 vs the i9900/pro9000 Canons...
(i'm still getting conflicting info from Canon on whether i can use the photo paper pro with the pigment inks of the 9500)
Now I'm thinking about stepping up to the next size. The Canon 5100 is too big for me, but the Epson 3800 isnt.
Can anyone give me some feedback on using the Epson 3800 for glossy prints?
I know Epson is the big dog in printing, but many have given Canon better testimonials for glossy highly saturated prints.
I'd love the ability to print 17in wide, but not at the expense of the deeper colors and glossiness I like.
My 3800 produces great results on glossy paper, but frankly I prefer matte/fine art paper. Of course, dye inks will produce snappier, more saturated colours in most instances than pigment inks and if that's what you like, you may not like pigment ink output from either Canon or Epson.
I would try and find someone to print one of your images on a 3800 and compare it to what you have now.
I agree with the above. I have an R1800, which is one of the better pigment printers for glossy because of its Gloss Optimizer, but I wouldn't have any fear of printing glossy on the 3800 either. The light light black in K3 helps reduce gloss differential problems with the pigment inks.
I moved from the canon 9900 to the Epson 3800 this year - have been nothing but satisfied. I prefer the matte or semigloss / satin papers, but have had good results on glossy also, especially the Harman FB AI Glossy.
Just finished printing studio portraits for a preschool on Red River Satin 2.0 - very pleased with the results, and the cost of ink / paper compared to the Canon 9900.
You will not know the answer to your question until you get a test print from each printer done in glossy. I came from a i9900 to a Epson 3800 myself recently and so far I'm pleased. I stepped up not for print size but cost of ink. I to wanted a ifp5000 or 5100 but the physical size of the printer coupled with the fact I had to use roll paper to print borderless made me go to Epson.
I'm still learning about the printer, but got great results right out the gate. I'm sure I'll improve print quality over time.
The 3800 is slower, but not so slow that it frustrated me. A 8x10 takes about 30 seconds longer than the i9900. 8x10 on the i9900 took 1 min 30 seconds, the 3800 2 min flat.
I'm fairly new to the 3800 and switched over from the Canon S900. The Canon produced jaw-dropping glossies and, like you, I worried about losing this with a switch to pigments. I mostly have used Photo Paper Pro on the Canon and Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl on both. I've done some comparisons of the Photo Paper Pro images with Ilford Smooth Gloss (not their glossiest paper). Colors are plenty vibrant and differences between the Canon and Epson appeared slight to my eye. Reactions from my photo friends and general public have been very positive. I'm not sure the Epson is the printer of choice if you plan on only doing glossies, but I dont think you will be dissatisfied. The appeal of this printer for me was overall quality, size of printer, availability of support info (see Eric Chan at MIT, dpreview), range of papers and profiles readily available,and ability to print up to 17" wide.
Oren wrote:
This is all very encouraging, and i'm leaning toward the 3800 now.
For you 3800 users out there..
Has Epson fixed the problems i heard they had with previous generations of clogging heads?
Get a test print done before you plop down your money.
My favorite paper on both the i9900 and the Epson 3800 for color has been the Epson Luster, the colors are rich, deep without the glare. I do like glossy for certain things as well as the Ilford Pearl. I just got a 8.5x11 and 13x19 sample pack from Red River, I used some of their stuff on my Canon as was quite pleased.
I have found that the canned profiles that came for each printer are quite different in that the Canon tended to print red/warm while the Epson tends to be ever so slightly on the cool/blue side. Side by side the prints look like they are on opposite sides of the spectrum, both look great individually and I'd say the Epson profile is closer to reality & my calibrated monitor. I do however like the warmness of the Canon for people photos with the canned profiles. I will get some custom profiles done when I have a few papers I like after testings to get it dead on.
The only down side to the Epson 3800 is the 37 inch length print. Pigment ink IMO give better shadow detail than dye inks, dyes may give sightly brighter questionably more saturated prints. The Canon iPF5100 is big requires 39x35 inch space, but I have mine on a 4ft folding table and haven't had any problems. The new glossy fiberbased papers Harman Bayrta FB Gloss especially gives a marvelous image, great tonal range deep saturated colors. Others have said the Hahnemuhle FB gloss is equally as good. Just very expensive papers.
There is no modern dye based inkjet printer with a carriage wider than 13." So make sure that you are satisfied with the pigment based printer's image on the (glossy) paper that you plan to use. My experience is that there is a big difference in print quality in the deep blacks and vidid colors between dye and pigment based inks.
SoundHound wrote:
There is no modern dye based inkjet printer with a carriage wider than 13." So make sure that you are satisfied with the pigment based printer's image on the (glossy) paper that you plan to use. My experience is that there is a big difference in print quality in the deep blacks and vidid colors between dye and pigment based inks.
The HP Designjet 130 & 90 printers are 24 to 18 inch and dye based. HP states to use only their papers a glossy and a satin. This gives a print life in the 75 year range, Wilhelm tried these printers with a big box store paper and with the same testing life was less than 1 year. Still if you want big prints and dye ink these printers are worth a look.
Oren wrote:
For you 3800 users out there..
Has Epson fixed the problems i heard they had with previous generations of clogging heads?
I had the 3800 almost a year and it has been pretty free of clogs. Being a hobbist it can sit a few weeks at a time unused. I think i had to do two or three head cleaning in the year i had it.
I am currently looking for a printer of this quality. The evidence provided in this artice, while informative does not provide a balanced view. There is evidence that the the Epson 3800 is a good printer but there is virtually no onformation on the Canpn 9500. To reach a conclusion over which is the best printer to buy is therefore impossible.
