I'm shopping for a new printer and wanted to get a general consensus from the FMer's as to what the best photo inkjet printer is at present. I'd appreciate any feedback regarding the more expensive vs. the best quality/cost models.
Yeah, I LIKE my Canon i9900 and Ilford Classic Pearl paper, which is my standard answer for these threads. Good mix of powerful color, speed, and archivability in 13x19 format. I saw someone picked one up for $299...but I paid $499 a while back. :rolleyes:
Ideally, I would like to print up to 11x14, but depending on price I'd be willing to go even larger, say 13x19. My query is also generally related to print quality/archivalness overall -- by manufacturer.
So, if you take print sizes out of the equation, who do you all think has the best "print quality" in terms of a company that you would stick with?
I know these are generalization, but I'm curious if there is one manufacturer that most stick with. . . in other words, opinions.
Like Jeff, I really like my i9900, though I prefer printing on the art papers...watercolor and parchments. The i9900 blows the epson 1280 (which it replaced) out of the water for color, speed, noise and handling the thicker papers. A side-by-side comparison of the same photo printed on each one was almost shocking...the print on the Canon i9900 came alive. And did I mention how quickly it prints? Now, I don't have any experience to speak of digital B&W printing, but most folks on this forum and elsewhere seem to favor Epson printers for B&W.
Hope this helps.
I have a Canon i960. If your not looking to go bigger than 8.5x11 you can't go wrong with this one. It has twice the number of ink nozzles than other models so it's really fast. It can be had for around $79 after rebate and the print quality is astounding. Genuine Canon ink can be had on ebay for around $40 for all 6 colors. It's so good, there's no way I could justify spending $300+ , the prints are virtually perfect.
I have to speak up for Epson. I have the 4000 (admittedly pricey, but hey the thing can print 17" x 100'!), but I've heard that the 2200 (13" wide prints) and lower-numbered models are just as respected in terms of print quality. The color range, archival ink, and acid-free paper selection are wonderful. I highly recommend Epson.
I have both the Canon i960 and the Epson 2200. The i960 is much faster and for a long time I thought it produced the print with a better "wow" factor than the 2200. Always on good glossy paper. One of the differences is the i960 uses dye inks and the 2200 uses pigments ink. Pigments are pretty mcuh accepted as being longer lasting or more archival. I have found that one year old i960 prints hung on my office wall are distinctly faded compared to new printed ones of the same image.
Then I worked at improving my work flow with the 2200 and improving my post processing skills. My printer of choice is now the Epson 2200 using Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper and the appropriate Epson paper profile.
The i960 has been relegated to a quick "proof" printer but all my final images are printed on the Epson 2200. I am very happy with the results after a lot of
time spent to get to this point.
For a larger format my next purchase will be the Espon 4000. That's my two cents worth. Best, Phil
