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.

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.

One suggestion that has not creep-ed up yet is the use of REAL colored filters in preparation for PP regardless of file format (JPG or raw).

A colorized filter alters the wave length of an object reflections attenuating some and enhancing others when you take the picture.

I think you will see an immediate opposition to the idea of using color filters in the next few posts. Folks believe that using filter in software is just as good, well it is not. A software filter merely colorize everything and subtract data when a filter adds it.

Just take in mind that you will shoot with PP in mind so forget the 'colors'.

Well...all of the tones in the image are similar right? You won't have a lot of contrast because of that.

You could goose the contrast slider in post if you need more contrast.

Notice that she's against a tone that is similar in value...everything in the shot except for her hair and the coping behind her is very similar...

Now you know what to do when shooting in black and white...you put "light against dark" or "dark against light" when deciding on subject and background...right?

What's wrong with that picture...?

It looks great.

Shooting B&W in camera (as opposed to converting later) will train your eye to recognize light tones and dark tones more easily and you'll be able to make better decisions about your subject. It's a different skill-set than shooting in color and you don't get to "get lucky" by shooting color and then just desaturating the shot to "see how it came out" after conversion.

This is just my opinion, nobody has to "correct me" on that.