Tim, tell me about that printer...Ink Jet???

I was thinking of going the dye-sublimation route and be able to get full bleed 8.5X11 with the Kodak 8500 Pro, dye-sub printer. I understand that they are the closest you can get to photograph print quality....Continuous tone versus dots...

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1003sb_thekodak/

 

Tim,
You seem to be the authority, so I will add a request as well. I was thinking of going woth the Xerox Phazer solid ink tabloid printer. Your thoughts?
I want to be able to print 11x17 size prints in full photographic quality.

 

Ken, I can actually help you now. Ha ha ha. You're in my wheel house (baseball term meaning I know a lot about it).

I have an Olympus P400 dye sub that looks great but I am having a terrible time creating accurate color profiles using my PhotoResearch Spectroscan 650 spectra radiometer. Anyone want it for a good price? The Epson blows it away right out of the box. All this while giving archival prints!

Now, if archival prints is unimportant, or a few extra dollars matter, look at the Canon 9000. It is much faster, costs less, and also does a great job. Both these printers are awesome! I wanted the archival as I hate seeing prints 1 year later color shift. The Olympus does this very little but other dot matrixes are quite bad (canon included). Some people don't mind but I do!

Two links to learn all you need to know:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...pson2200.shtml

http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html

 

Nice Sony! I am deciding between that and the Canon Digital Rebel...I dunno what to pick

 

Ken, make sure you have it available Sunday if you are hooking up with Sean for a ride to LI.

 

So what's the photo printer bottom line...Can anyone prove that dye sublimation is not the superior form of digi photo reproduction as compared to ink jet???
1) Dye sub is continuous tone not dots like ink jet...just like printed film photo
2)does not plug up like ink jets...uses the 3 primary colors in dry tape form with three passes..yellow, cyan and magenta
3)The only real affordable one that can do full 8 1/2x11 bleeds is the Kodak 8500 professional for about $1,100.
4) cost per 8 1/2x11 is $1.75 per print less than ink jet at their highest quality.
To use the best quality ink jet paper to even compete and it wont because it is made up of dots, you are talking more money per print.
5)Only advantage inkjet has is 11x17 size...Dye sub can do, but you will need a machine that costs over $7,000

In the end, most prints are adequate at the 8 1/2x11 size. If you need bigger, send it email to Kodak's site and they can do poster size if you like. So I vote dye sub all the way!!!

 

Tim,
I have a question. I like the idea of the Epson, but I need a network compatible printer. Epson has the 4000 as seen below:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/W...ormat+Printers
You simply add a network card and that's it. Your thoughts??

 

Cograts on the camera - I have a 10D with 4 lenses and the i950 printer and love them all.

 

Ken ... Ohh yae baby! Go for the big dog epson. I thought money was a factor? The 4,000 is butt stomp, kick but, destroy ANYTHING else good!

Rockitman:
1. I have dye sub and epson dot matrix (7 archival inks). Without a loop, you can't tell the difference, it's that stinking good.
2. The never plug is nice as you list. The epson 2200 is nothing like earlier epsons that plugged constantly. I have had to clean the head once and investigated this extensively before I bought the printer as I HATE insessant head cleaning. The 2200 hides the head when in power off mode, so you simply turn the unit off when not in use.
3. Yes, and my Epson will beat the Kodak for lower purchase price and cost per print should be close, and destroy it for archival purposes and 13"x19" prints. I can't comment on the color profiling of the Kodak but Dye subs often have difficulty with this.
4. Cost per oprint are usually close.
5. Sorry rockitman, like I said, you're in my wheel house. Prepare for the thumping.
a. No, 13"x19". This is a big deal.
b. ARCHIVAL PRINTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~70 year life. Dye subs use organic dyes and are inherently unstable. The epson is the only (I think) printer using pigments that are incredibly stable.
c. Paper selection. Many prints look better on matte paper (portraits), usually with dye subs you are stuck with a laminate that makes everything a little shiny, even the 8500 "matte" one.
d. B&W looks terrible off of dye subs.
e. The resolution is only 314 dpi vs 1440 dps. Don't confuse dot size with true resolution. The nature of the dye sub process makes the individual dots difficult to detect under a loop improving apparent smoothness (looks most film enlargement like), at the expense of true resolution. The epson is higher resolution, meaning you can see more detail.
-a Dye subs are usually damn fast. The Epson is slow.

Dye subs aren't bad, just not better than this relatively new archival epson.

 

Thanks Tim!! This site has so many resources, you gotta love it!
Yes, money is a factor, but at the same time, paying $1700 for a printer of that caliber is not bad in my opinion. It is more justifiable from a business perspective than the camera + lenses. At least I have an upgrade path with the camera.
THe 400 is supposed to be introduced in March. Damn, I am always on the bleeding edge. I am getting sick of that. I had to wait 3 months for the camera and now another 3 for the printer. Jeesh! You don't happen to have a connection or any recommendations as to where I can buy the printer, do you? I was going to go to www.cdw.com
They have sold me many things in the past and their customer service is top notch.

 

Oh, I almost forgot. Thanks Tim. Your expert opinion is greatly valued!!

 

I could've gotten it for you for a little more less than what you paid for!

 

Tim...Thumping is greatly appreciated...I am just trying to figure out the best way to go...I am no complete stranger to printing. Worked for AB Dick for 3 years in the late 80's...Sold their small Ryobi 11x17 4 color press and am familar with hasselblads and Mielle web presses. Used to have my own darkroom....Bottom line, your in the color biz, so I am very interested in what would be best to use to print out my digi photos at max resolution...

So this Epson is the way to go for full 11x17 bleeds??? If I print a big photo on gloss paper and frame it...the naked eye won't tell the difference between it and a print done on photographic paper???

I do want the prints to last forever...at least as long as I am alive...

Any other options to consider???

Thanks

 

Hey, glad I can help as I plan to do a lot of your mods so look at my little help as a down payment to the 8 billion questions I’m going to be asking you when I do the Stage 4GTR to my car.

I can't be as much help on the purchase end. CDW is great. I use B&H a lot for my photo gear. Basically, I look to see who has the lowest price with a good reputation.

Just for the record, I think it is better to focus on the capture of the image in the highest quality possible. You can always add a better printer later or send it out to a pro output house, but if you don't capture the photons in the best possible way, the lost quality is gone forever. This is why I have the best camera I can get and the best lenses I can get. My kids will only be young once and I want the highest quality possible. (I also do wildlife shooting so this is why I have the 10D instead of the 1Ds, I want the 1.6 multiplier). Yes, I am thinking of getting the 1Ds as well as the 10D and D60 I have now. Oink Oink.

If cost hurts, do what you need to do, but I really want to grab the image as well as possible.

I know you can't tell much from a jpg shot but here is an example or two.

 

Beautiful kids Tim!!!
Great photography as well. But, I think I told you that once before!
I got the printer for $1650 at CDW. Loyalty pays off for once! That is $150 less than retail on a product that is brand new to the market. Not bad.