speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I never printed anything smaller than 8 1/2 x 11, but about 90% of the time bigger! Printed loads of 16x20 or larger as well! That's why I got a printer that can do it, if I only want to print small, then I would have one that can only print small. And I do not use vendors, because they lack the quality that I get at home, while at the same time they are too expensive! Why else do you think somebody would buy/have a printer that can print large? Just to look at it?

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

I finally made the jump from my Canon ink hog to a new Epson RT-7750. It uses ink from a bottle into a reservoirs and the prints are out of this world. Can only handle 11 X 17 paper, but they do make a printer that handles larger paper. This reservoir thing looks like it will save me a bundle on ink. Wish I had made the change to EPSON a long time ago.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Holy crap! That’s an expensive printer! Get a Canon Pro-100 for $150. I know the OP wanted advice for an Epson replacement; but $895 ON SALE??? What does it do? Take the pick, too and then. Just kiddin’

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

The Canon Pro-10 uses pigment ink, like your Epson, and I have some beautiful 13x19 prints from it hanging in my living room. I agree with Red River Paper.

EDIT: Ha! This was supposed to be an edit to my response, not a reply to me!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

One should never expect to save money with an inkjet printer.

As good as the ET-7750 is (there is no RT-7750 listed on Epson's web site), it was designed for the small office/home office market as a document printer that can print an occasional photo for casual use.

I’ve often advised that people should buy inkjet printers primarily for these reasons:

> Ultimate control over the entire process

> Privacy and security of sensitive content

> Making LARGE prints and prints for sale to high end clients

> Archival quality and print longevity — up to FIVE TIMES longer than silver halide technology

> Printing on archival cotton rag papers, canvas, art board, and other fine or exotic papers

> Widest possible color gamut output (for maximum color saturation and accuracy)

> Low volume (but frequent) usage

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You do get what you pay for. Silver halide photo paper used by labs is really inexpensive, costing less than $0.25 per square foot in bulk quantities ordered by larger labs. It is also inexpensive to print and develop in a high volume operation. But in *direct* aging test comparisons with pigment-based inkjet prints, even the best silver halide papers don't last an estimated 40 to 50 years without fading, while the inkjet prints are estimated to last 160 to 200 years under the same conditions.

See my post above... As an ex-school portrait photo lab manager who managed inkjet, silver halide, dye-sublimation, electrostatic, and offset print operations at one point or another, I came to the conclusion in 2003 that making inkjet prints has nothing to do with low cost, and everything to do with control and quality.

If all you care about is cost, use a lab. They can make small prints MUCH less expensively than anyone with an inkjet printer. What they can't do is make them archival (long lasting), or make them on exotic papers and other substrates. Yes, some of them can make relatively inexpensive large silver halide prints, too, but with the same limits.

Of all the processes we used, inkjet was the MOST expensive, regardless of print size. But it was also the MOST logical for large prints, since our volume was reasonably low— we could not justify having a $250,000 wdide format silver halide laser printer for a few thousand large prints (>12x18 inches) per year. But we had 40 mini-labs for everything 12x18 and smaller! Those printed millions of portrait packages and various other products every year.

During our early 2000s transition to digital production from optical production, we replaced a dozen specialized, large format optical printers with one Epson 44" Ultrachrome-ink-based printer. We kept it busy making large group photos (30"x10"); deluxe composite portraits up to 60"x40" for fraternities, sororities, bands, senior classes, and the like; canvas portraits of high school and college seniors; and similar subjects. For everything else, we used mini-labs and silver halide paper, or dye-sub printers for student ID Cards, or high speed electrostatic printers for proofs, sticker prints, and other temporary-use products.

Eventually, as we consolidated four labs into one, we had three 44" printers. We kept canvas in one of them, and photo-grade paper in the others.

Large prints are the most expensive you can buy from any lab. That's primarily because few labs can make them, and they can charge a premium for the ability to make them. The cost of materials is relatively low, compared with their perceived value.

A 60x40 has about 16.7 square feet of paper in it. In 2004, we were spending about $1.20 per square foot on Epson paper and Epson ink to make portrait and composite and group prints. So a 60x40 print cost around $20 in materials to make. We charged about $130 for it. Our competitors would charge $225 for the same print, made only on inferior silver halide paper. We could print on canvas, or luster surface photo paper, or matte surface paper, or...

If you care about control, color quality, archival longevity, and printing LARGE on special paper surfaces, an inkjet printer makes great sense. If you care about cost, think twice! And if you are unable or unwilling to practice disciplined color management techniques, think several more times.

anotherview Loc: California

Bought a P800.