QUESTION - Recommendation for good photo printer (<$200)?

[BD]

Hey, all.

I have a POS old Epson 777, and I use after-market ink (measekite,
don't even _start_).

I'm in a situation where I'm trying to print some photos for a model
who I shot recently, and am becoming frustrated by the difference in
color representation between my monitor and my printer. I find that the
color saturation is considerably lower in the printout than on the
monitor. I'm trying to adjust color balance and saturation of the image
before printing, but this is becoming frustrating because it's
effectively guesswork.

I've done some research into ICC profiles, and admit I'm out of my
depth. Nor am I convinced that they will help me. My printer is old,
the ink is second rate, and this setup arguably should not be used with
high expectations of fidelity.

I expect that a good option for me might be to buy a second printer, to
be used for 'good' prints only.

I would need decent resolution, good quality with matched photo paper,
and (most importantly) good control over the monitor/printer color
balance. No need for larger-than-normal paper sizes, but I'm open to
that if it's not a huge price point difference.

And I _don't_ want to break the bank. Couple hundred bucks, tops.

Are there any 'obvious' choices in this regard? All I'm hoping for is a
pointer in the right direction, like 'check out the Canon "Blabla"
series', or something along those lines.

I'll need some indication that the color representation between my
monitor and the printer can be maintained. I use a 19" LCD monitor by
Hyundai. Decent monitor, about a year old.

Thanks for any recommendations!!

 

[Bernie]

Hey, all.

I have a POS old Epson 777, and I use after-market ink (measekite,
don't even _start_).

I'm in a situation where I'm trying to print some photos for a model
who I shot recently, and am becoming frustrated by the difference in
color representation between my monitor and my printer. I find that the
color saturation is considerably lower in the printout than on the
monitor. I'm trying to adjust color balance and saturation of the image
before printing, but this is becoming frustrating because it's
effectively guesswork.

I've done some research into ICC profiles, and admit I'm out of my
depth. Nor am I convinced that they will help me. My printer is old,
the ink is second rate, and this setup arguably should not be used with
high expectations of fidelity.

I expect that a good option for me might be to buy a second printer, to
be used for 'good' prints only.

I would need decent resolution, good quality with matched photo paper,
and (most importantly) good control over the monitor/printer color
balance. No need for larger-than-normal paper sizes, but I'm open to
that if it's not a huge price point difference.

And I _don't_ want to break the bank. Couple hundred bucks, tops.

Are there any 'obvious' choices in this regard? All I'm hoping for is a
pointer in the right direction, like 'check out the Canon "Blabla"
series', or something along those lines.

I'll need some indication that the color representation between my
monitor and the printer can be maintained. I use a 19" LCD monitor by
Hyundai. Decent monitor, about a year old.

Thanks for any recommendations!!

I would certainly look at the Canon Pixma printers. Their website will
let you compare models so that you determine your balance between price
and features. I'm still using, and very pleased with, my S900. Someday
when it needs to be replaced I expect to look to Canon again.

To get my monitor and printer colors to match I adjusted my monitor and
then used some good test images and experimented. When I was happy I
saved the profile. You have to create a printer for each paper that you
are going to use, but you can make small prints while you're
experimenting. there is a lot of information at
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#TestPrint. Even if
you don't use much of the information, it will point you to the test
images that I use.

I will not get into any debates about manufacturers vs other inks. For
myself, when I'm printing wedding and other special photos of our family
that I want to last it isn't worth any risk to me at all and i stick to
the manufacturers inks. I don't print such high volumes that any cost
savings of other inks would be significant. We all have our thresholds
for long term risk, and for costs. Those are mine.

Have fun,
Bernie

 

[Stanley Krute]

Hi BD

Your $200 figure is a bit low, I fear. Reason:
To get color under control, to a high level of quality,
it's my opinion you'll have to at least tune your monitor.
I use the ColorVision Spyder 2 to do that. The least expensive
model is a bit under $100 (the Spyder2 Express).
Every monitor needs tuning if you're into critical color.

Once you've tuned your monitor, you can tune many printers
to a reasonable degree by just printing out a small (say 2" x 3")
test image, then adjust the printer's color controls as needed, then
print out another sample, then adjust the printer's color controls as
needed, etc until you're satisfied. On most printers, a dozen or so
iterations of that cycle will get you into the ballpark where what you
see on your tuned monitor is what comes out on paper. You'll need to
tune the printer for each paper/ink combination that you use.

As to nice printers: Canon, Epson, and HP all make good 'uns.
I've had a bunch of Epsons, and also have a large (DJ 130) HP,
and they all do a lovely job.

And, just so you know, though it won't impact you now: you can tune a
printer, by creating custom color profiles for a printer using a colorimeter
or spectrophotometer.
Least expensive of these, and quite capable, is Colorvision's PrintFix Pro.

-- stan
yes, I'm a color fanatic

 

[BD]

it's my opinion you'll have to at least tune your monitor.

You may be right.

But, there is always a slippery slope when it comes to these purchases.
I am sure that I could easily spend a thousand bucks on this, and still
get my money's worth. But I do have to impose a ceiling here. And
anything over $200 ain't gonna happen. ;-)

For the moment I'll just keep playing my guessing game with my color
calibration, until this particular task is done, and then re-assess my
needs. If I can establish to my own satisfaction that I can get this
printer and refill it with reasonable results (I _refuse_ to become a
slave to OEM ink; I'll stick with my Epson 777 and its recurring clogs
before I do that), I may get the printer. I doubt I'll get into the
real calibration routine as you describe until I get a paid shooting
gig.

It's soooo frustrating. I'm a perfectionist, but I cannot justify the
expense involved with the home printing gear that perfection would
require. ;-)

 

[Stanley Krute]

Hi BD

But, there is always a slippery slope when it comes to these purchases.
I am sure that I could easily spend a thousand bucks on this, and still
get my money's worth. But I do have to impose a ceiling here. And
anything over $200 ain't gonna happen. ;-)

Let's see: Spyder2 for $90. Printer for $200. $300 gets you 90% of
the way.

In this realm, ya get what ya pay for.

Reality's a bitch, eh ?

-- stan

 

[measekite]

Hey, all.

I have a POS old Epson 777, and I use after-market ink (measekite,
don't even _start_).

what a waste of a printer

I'm in a situation where I'm trying to print some photos for a model
who I shot recently,

that should be against the law

and am becoming frustrated by the difference in
color representation between my monitor and my printer.

first you need to get a profile that mateches your monitor and factory
ink and a known paper source

I find that the
color saturation is considerably lower in the printout than on the
monitor.

go to photoshop and increase the saturation

I'm trying to adjust color balance

use curves adjustment

and saturation of the image
before printing, but this is becoming frustrating because it's
effectively guesswork.

I've done some research into ICC profiles, and admit I'm out of my
depth.

oh yeah

Nor am I convinced that they will help me. My printer is old,

the cure for that is to buy a new canon ip5200 and use canon ink.

the ink is second rate,

i'll buy that

and this setup arguably should not be used with
high expectations of fidelity.

of course not

I expect that a good option for me might be to buy a second printer,

i jsut recommended that

to
be used for 'good' prints only.

I would need decent resolution, good quality with matched photo paper,
and (most importantly) good control over the monitor/printer color
balance. No need for larger-than-normal paper sizes, but I'm open to
that if it's not a huge price point difference.

And I _don't_ want to break the bank. Couple hundred bucks, tops.

ip5200 on sale went for about $110 and the much slower ip4200 with
factory ink goes for about $80.00 on sale.

Are there any 'obvious' choices in this regard? All I'm hoping for is a
pointer in the right direction, like 'check out the Canon "Blabla"
series', or something along those lines.

I'll need some indication that the color representation between my
monitor and the printer can be maintained. I use a 19" LCD monitor by
Hyundai.

how many photos per gallon

Decent monitor, about a year old.

Thanks for any recommendations!!

you are welcome

 

[BD]

that should be against the law

Greeeeat. The punctuationally challenged, at it again.

 

[BD]

Reality's a bitch, eh ?

It certainly is.

Just spent the past half hour tweaking color balance in the source
TIFFs. Printout results are good enough for now. I will consider Spyder
as well as the hardware - but only if the demand for decent printouts
increases.

Thanks!

 

[Stanley Krute]

Hi BD

I will consider Spyder
as well as the hardware - but only if the demand for decent printouts
increases.

It's a bit of chicken/egg here: better color in prints increases sales
which allows one to buy the tools to improve print color. Oy.

Yep, this $$$ thing is a pain. At least digital has given us a film
scholarship.

-- stan

 

[BD]

It's a bit of chicken/egg here: better color in prints increases sales which allows one to buy the tools to improve print color. Oy.

Too bad I'm not actually selling anything. ;-)

Yep, this $$$ thing is a pain. At least digital has given us a film scholarship.

Photography by attrition. I love it.