Rick from NY wrote:
Thinking about trying photo printer again. Gave up printing at home years ago since it was less expensive going to a lab than paying for paper and ink while printing an image 5 times before it looked good. And unless printing almost daily, jets clogged.
Figured new tech might have produced a reasonably priced printer with excellent print capabilities, more than 4 color inks for subtle colors, able to print up to either max 8x10 or ones that allow 11x14’s. Like to keep it under $1k. Apparently Elson or Canon lead the pack.
Any thoughts?
Thinking about trying photo printer again. Gave u... (
show quote)
There are four 13" printers currently available that are photo quality and able to print 11x14:
- Epson XP-15000, $300, dye inks, 6-color
- Canon Pro-200, $549, dye inks, 8-color
- Epson P700, $800, pigment inks, 10-color
- Canon Pro-300, $850, pigment inks, 10-color
Someone might suggest the Epson EcoTank or Canon Mega Tank (versions both 8.5" and 13" wide) for more cost-effective inks, but these are actually not considered photo quality because they only use 4 or 5 colors (cyan, magenta, yellow, black and sometimes gray). The Canon iP8720 is another 13" wide printer that sells for $250 and is 6-color. But, two of it's inks are black and the other five are like the EcoTank and Mega Tank printers.
There aren't many 8.5" wide truly "photo quality" printers these days. Epson XP-8700 and Canon G620 are both all-in-one printers (also have a scanner) with 6 dye-based colors. Both of those printers cost $300.
Even though 6-color is about the minimum, there is a noticeable difference between photos printed with 6 inks versus those done with 8 or more colors.
Dye inks used to be really prone to fading. They've improved and now are typically rated for around 100 years life. But that's about half the life expectancy of pigment inks. Personally I prefer pigment inks on matte papers and dye based on semi-gloss and glossy papers.
Whatever printer you might choose, also look carefully into the cost of replacement inks and the size of the ink cartridges. It's an ongoing expense after that initial purchase. There are 3rd party inks that are cheaper, but may not work as well or be as long-lasting.
Finally, you mention having to print an image numerous times before you get it to look right. Is your computer monitor calibrated? If not, that's most likely the problem. Many computer monitors are way too bright for proper photo editing and they don't render color all that accurately, either. Too bright a monitor causes you to adjust your images too dark. And inaccurate colors on the monitor will cause you to mis-adjust the images trying to fix a problem that's not there. A calibration device like a Datacolor Spyder or Calibrite ColorChecker is a big help setting correct brightness and locking in correct color rendition. Because they lose brightness and shift color as they age, monitors need to be re-calibrated periodically (I do it monthly). While there's an initial investment in a device, it will likely pay for itself over time with less wasted paper and ink,