Photo Printer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark

Hello Folks-

I need to purchase a printer just for printing Digital photos, from a
microscope. Will be attached to PC running Win 2000. Accuracy of photos,
both in color and detail is most important. Long term storage is not
important. Up-front cost is not an issue, nor is cost of supplies.

I am leaning toward an Epson, probably the R800. But since long term
storage is not important, do I want dye based inks rather than pigment? Do
dyes have a wider color gamut? or just more saturation?

Or should I be looking at dye sublimation printers? Are there any Dye sub
printers around that will print letter size?

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks

Mark
 
Mark said:
Hello Folks-

I need to purchase a printer just for printing Digital photos, from a
microscope. Will be attached to PC running Win 2000. Accuracy of photos,
both in color and detail is most important. Long term storage is not
important. Up-front cost is not an issue, nor is cost of supplies.

I am leaning toward an Epson, probably the R800. But since long term
storage is not important, do I want dye based inks rather than pigment?
Do dyes have a wider color gamut? or just more saturation?

Or should I be looking at dye sublimation printers? Are there any Dye sub
printers around that will print letter size?

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Dyes have a wider colour gamut than pigment. The more ink cartridges the
wider the gamut. I would therefore recommend the ip8500. 8 inks. Although
epson do eight inks one is actually a gloss optimser. Its sort of a coating
on the whole sheet. Epson pro stuff tends towards pigment and aim at
longevity rather than wide colour gamut. Canons tend to be easier to use.
High quality epson colour accuracy really requires colour profiling and
calibration. There are a myriad of settings too. Simply set the canon to
icm in the advanced menu and thats the lot.
 
The Ultrachrome pigment inks in the Epson have a color gamut that is very
close to dye. In some areas pigment is actually better.

It's not just how many ink cartridges you have, it is the ability to mix
them into a pleasing image.

I use my Epsons all the time and don't find them hard to use at all.
 
Mark said:
Hello Folks-

I need to purchase a printer just for printing Digital photos, from a
microscope. Will be attached to PC running Win 2000. Accuracy of photos,
both in color and detail is most important. Long term storage is not
important. Up-front cost is not an issue, nor is cost of supplies.

I am leaning toward an Epson, probably the R800. But since long term
storage is not important, do I want dye based inks rather than pigment? Do
dyes have a wider color gamut? or just more saturation?
Click to expand...
Dye inks have greater saturation and are more vibrant. They also cost
less. Canon printers will does not have the tendency to clog as much as
Epson. The Ip4000 or the IP5200 might be considerations.
 
Safetymom123 said:
The Ultrachrome pigment inks in the Epson have a color gamut that is very
close to dye. In some areas pigment is actually better.

It's not just how many ink cartridges you have, it is the ability to mix
them into a pleasing image.

I use my Epsons all the time and don't find them hard to use at all.
Click to expand...

Using them all the time is why they are easy. I should think that once they
are setup it is not necessary to adjust many of the settings. Only paper
type and quality. I'm refering to the 5 different settings inside photo
enhance. Then there is edge smoothing. microweaving, hispeed on or off.
there is also epson gamma 1.2 1.8 and 2.2. there is icm with colour
adjustment on or off. Experimenting with this lot has already got me
through a full set of inks and 50 sheets of paper. Once i have found a
combination of inks paper and settings to my liking i will find it easy.
However with the canon there was quality, paper setting, vivid or normal icm
auto or manual and that was it. Out of the box accurate colours.
 
ian lincoln said:
Using them all the time is why they are easy. I should think that once they
are setup it is not necessary to adjust many of the settings. Only paper
type and quality.
Click to expand...

I've got an Epson 2100/2200 (Pigment) and an HP86840 (Dye) printer. The
Epson seems to give the most accurate colours out of the box - eg using
factory default settings without any tweaking. The HP produces more vibrant
images but I find it slightly too vibrant (particularly reds) using the
default settings. When adjusted both produce equally good results. The Epson
was quite a bit more expensive when I got it - hard to justify the
difference unless you have better eyes than me.

The OP mentioned a microscope. I wonder how well callibrated the light bulb
in the microscope is? Is it a general purpose bulb or a special one with
defined specification/spectrum? What I'm getting at is... could the colours
change after a bulb change?
 
CWatters said:
I've got an Epson 2100/2200 (Pigment) and an HP86840 (Dye) printer. The
Epson seems to give the most accurate colours out of the box - eg using
factory default settings without any tweaking. The HP produces more vibrant
images but I find it slightly too vibrant (particularly reds) using the
default settings. When adjusted both produce equally good results. The Epson
was quite a bit more expensive when I got it - hard to justify the
difference unless you have better eyes than me.
Click to expand...

I should point out that the Epson is an A3 photo printer and the HP is a
more general purpose A4 printer. The different form factor accounts for a
significant percentage of the cost.
 
[snip}>
The OP mentioned a microscope. I wonder how well callibrated the light
bulb
in the microscope is? Is it a general purpose bulb or a special one with
defined specification/spectrum? What I'm getting at is... could the
colours
change after a bulb change?
Click to expand...
I'm the network admin. I'm sure you would see some sort of color shift when
you replace the bulb, but generally the comparisons are made in the short
term. ie take a picture of sample1, take a picture of sample2, compare. You
probably would not compare picture1 taken before the change to picture2
taken much later, after a bulb change. It may be a problem, may not.

I haven't seen much discussion at all in the group about dye-sub printers.
I read a review on the Olympus P-440, and it looks promising. Much less for
the operator to adjust. And since each dot has different intensity levels
you get closer to continuous tone. Anybody using them?
 
I would strongly recommend you stay with the Epsons.
For your purposes the ink/pigment debate is irrelevant.
I use both Canon and Epson printers and I have no doubt that the color
accuracy of Epson drivers, even without formal color management, is far
superior to anything offered by Canon.
Canon has systematic problems throughout their product lines with poor
software, for computers or embedded in the device, impairing the use of
their often excellent hardware.I suspect this is because they are the most
egregious about short marketing cycles and eternally producing "new"
machines that are, in fact, simply repackaged old technology. This is
exemplified in the pixma printers that use the same frigging inks as the
previous generation of i9x printers: same ink, same gamut, same printer.
In fact I find Canon printers useless without detailed calibration/profiling
of specific printer/paper combinations because color accuracy using Canon's
basic drivers is, to be kind, horrible.
 
Back
Top