PhotoChallenged Loc: Bear, Delaware

I have decided on the Epson Stylus Photo R3000 Inkjet Printer. B&H has it for $724 with $150 mail in rebate and free expedited shipping making the final cost $574. Again I thank everyone for their input.

TexasBadger Loc: Wylie, TX

You will be very happy with the R3000. Some people have suggested that you only want to use Epson paper and inks. While I agree that you should only use Epson inks, I strongly suggest that there are paper options out there that Epson simply does not have. For example Red River Paper has a paper called Polar Pearl Metallic that will blow your mind!

I would also suggest that when you print you select the option where Photoshop controls the printer. Load the proper ICC profiles and you will get stunning results.

Also, Red River Paper is a little less expensive than Epson, but it is by no means cheap. I agree that you should not use cheap paper.

Finally, I would suggest buying your ink for the R3000 online. I use Adorama for my ink. I estimate that I save ~$50/ink set by buying online.

PhotoChallenged Loc: Bear, Delaware

Thanks for taking the time to assist/advise me. I appreciate it.

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

I have the Canon Pro-100 and am happy with it so far. Twice as many inks as my old printer and uses less of it to boot. It can print paper or CDs/DVDs. It can go a little wider than 13" but it's a custom setting and can do longer than 19".

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I have been using Epson printers for over 25 years. I have Canon and Epson that print 8.5x11 and then the Epson Pro 3880. The 3880 has 9 80mil cartridges and I can tell you that I think it is the finest printer I have ever owned. In my 25 years I have never had anything but good luck with Epson. At the moment Epson is offering a $250.00 rebate on the 3880. If you buy from B&H you don't pay taxes or shipping. The value of the ink is almost $600. Combined savings really means that the 3880 is about $500. Some may not like my math but it makes sense to me. To me, the only choice is the 3880. CaptianC uses the 3880 and I think he knows his stuff... Good luck.

Ob1 Loc: Utah

I am sure the Epsons are great but I just purchased the Canon Pro 10. It is one amazing printer.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I have an Artisan 1430 and it is an excellent printer, I sell my prints at a gallery and have no cons on the quality. And it can do little prints or big prints up to 13" wide, I find the 13x19" print frames nicely in an 18x24 inch mat, add a 3 inch frame and you have a big 24x30inch space on your wall, just like a big painting. The big con with this printer is the cost of replacing ink cartridges, but I have researched other brands and it about par for the course. Some try the "compatible" cartridges, but on a previous Epson similar model I tried them but the results were not professional enough for selling in a gallery, I noticed a definite lack of opacity and faint printing lines. Some claim success with them, experiment at your own risk. What the hey, the printer is cheap enough, if you mess up you have finally found out if those incredibly cheap inks will work for you.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

By far the better deal would be an Epson 3880.

Given your intent, and having looked at your profile and other posts to see where you are coming from, it appears the question isn't just "a photo printer", but rather "a serious photo printer". The R3000 is on the high end of the consumer models and the 3880 is the low end of the commercial models.

Two big detractions from the R3000 are the quality of build and the cost of operation (the price of a milliliter of ink).

It's been two or three years since I surveyed inks, but the last time I looked ink for an R3000 was the most expensive of any Epson printer, at $1.17/ml. Compare that to the 3880 at $0.74, the 4900 at $0.50, or the 7890 at $0.40.

Supposedly the average 8x10 will cost $1.87 in ink printed on an R3000. You'll save $0.69 with a 3880 on every print. Get a 7980 and you'll save $1.23 on every print. If you print more than about 200 prints per year the larger printer is actually less expensive.

And make no mistake, the 3880 is the low end of the commercial line from Epson. It cannot print roll paper. It has problems feeding some canvas sheets. It does not have vacuum assisted paper transport. The ink carts are only 80ml... The other commercial printers are bigger heavier, but the ink cost even less, they can use rolls for less expensive paper and easier work, and trust that vacuum assisted paper transport means papers always feed and never jam.

Hence if you plan serious photography for more than 2 or 3 years, start with the idea that the 3880 is the low end, and decide just how serious you are.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

DavidPine, thnx much for the above info. I have no loyalty towards Canon so I will definitely consider the 3880. -FiddleMaker

PhotoChallenged Loc: Bear, Delaware

The printer is being delivered today between 2-4pm. To late to change my mind now...?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Return it immediately if you will do enough printing to make a commercial printer less expensive.

There actually are some other factors to consider too. The better build quality stepping from consumer models to the 3880 and then up from there makes the higher end models just a lot nicer to work with. While 8x10's are nice. certainly 13x19 gets your attention even more. But a 16x20 will grab you! And a 24x30 will boggle your mind! (The bigger the printer, the more you'll print...)

A.J.R. Loc: Devon, UK

It sounds convincing but maybe Photo challenged wont be making enough prints to need a commercial printer. There could be problems if larger quantities of ink were purchased but not used quickly enough. Maybe I'm wrong but it would be interesting to hear your views. I am sure however that Photo Challenged will be very pleased with his purchase if he decides to keep the R3000.

PhotoChallenged Loc: Bear, Delaware

WOW! Decisions, Decisions...My brain hursts

:(

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I've stipulated that print volume is the deciding factor in the cost difference.

If I remember right, Epson claims a two year shelf life when unopened, and either 6 months or 1 year when opened.

Virtually nobody takes them serious! I've personally seen 750ml HP pigment inks that were more than 5 years old that were just like new. I've used Epson inks that were more than a year out of date. I've heard of several instances of Epson carts that were stored in a printer for in excess of 4 years being used, and in at least one case of unopened ink cartridges that worked perfectly after sitting on the shelf for over 10 years. The main point is that there are no negative stories. Nobody ever says aged ink was a problem (unless it was exposed to air and simply dried up).

In practice though, if the larger printers are used enough to justify the price, they pay for themselves in less than 4 years, and the ink is used fast enough to never be out of date. If it is of concern, with the larger printers the cost of ink in 350ml carts is only about 6 cents more per ml that the 700ml carts are.