Which printer NOT to buy?

[Kartman2]

Originally Posted by JimAuburn

Which photo printers have you been disappointed in, and why?

As for me - I'm always have only good experience with printers.
Hovewer if you want to know which printers are bad, I suggest you to visit TestFreaks and sort printers by score.
In the bottom of the list you'll see printers, which have poor ratings, based on expert and user reviews. I think it's a best way to understand which printers have much cons.

[Sing141]

Until recently I have always favored Epson printers and I suppose the problems aren't necessarily Epson's fault although tracking down answers from Epson is a chore. I have had the R200 for several years and it worked for photos I wanted to print. Then it seemed to suddenly print everything about 4 stops underexposed which I've recently found out has something to do with XP SP2 although I had XP SP2 for some time before the printing problem started. The same files print fine at CostCo or Walmart.

Anyway, I purchased the Epson R1800 and have the same problem. I have yet to get a decent print from it, which is probably due to my lack of knowledge, but the knowledge isn't always easy to come by and is frustrating to find. Epson has updated drivers and paper profiles for XP SP2 but all their support people don't know that. So I'm thinking more and more about taking the photos, doing what I want in Lightroom/Photoshop or whatever and printing at a lab or, for everyday photos, at Walmart.

[Aquila]

Well I have a HP Designjet 130 (could buy it very cheap). Big advantage is that is very low cost per print (it uses very little ink and the inktanks a relatively large).
Still there's one big disadvantage and that has to do with callibration. When I callibrate the printer it's almost impossible to get rid of the green flare in B&W-prints.

[Paul Shields]

I picked up an HP B9180 (GP) A3+ printer this week, and can honestly say it is way beyond my expectations. It came with an eye-one calibration device that made a big difference. I really haven't seen such accurate printing compared to 3rd party company I've used in the past. It's such a rewarding experience being able to control the whole process - taking a picture, 'developing' it, and printing it.

[c_dwebb@msn.com]

I am also breaking in a new HP B9180 and am very impressed with the results so far. I still have a bit to learn about it. I am very much interested the economy I can get from the ink cartridges. Are your plans to leave it on all of the time as is recomended.

C Webb

[Paul Shields]

Yes I've left it on so far. I believe it does use up ink over time due to the 24 hour maintenance cycle, but I aim to be using it pretty frequently so it'll probably balance out compared to doing a power on cycle every time I turn it on.

[Halifax Photographer]

Originally Posted by martin-images

I agree and disagree with your post, OK home printers wont do a lot of the advanced things you mention, but as far as printing out your own images and selling as plain prints and providing a service for matting and framing its the best way to go, why, you have total control of the finished product, I print until I get the result I want not what the Lab decides, i sell hundreds of pictures a year , monochrome on various types~finishes fine Art papers, the same with colour, one other advantage is time, order a print from me and its done and posted the next day, to say that home printing is still at the hobbyist stage above 13inch is not true, a good printer like the Epson 3800. and canons equivalent iPF5100 very capable printers that produce outstanding results at affordable prices at A2 and above, all depends on what you want from a printer if you only do the odd one now and again then the lab is the cheapest option, if you sell numerous prints then it would be worthwhile spending the money on a quality pro model and controlling the output your self

Martin

How do you like the 3800?
I am looking at buying a printer and am stuck. No one in my area has a 3800. What's the good and the bad? Color/B&W. You print B&W but what is your experience with color? What papers have you tested and liked? There are allot of revues but you can never tell if their legit users or Epson/Canon etc..

If you have time I'd appreciate a little experience feedback.

Thanks
Martin

[martin-images]

Well from my own point of view the Epson printers are very reliable, I have had 2 over the last 3 years and not on problem, the first was the R2400 a great printer that accepts roll papers, the problem with it if you do lots of printing as i do is the running costs in ink, this is where the 3800 is far superior, the ink carts hold 80 mls as against the 12mls for the 2400, the actual running cost is half, so if you think about it the 3800 is around £900 but includes £300 of ink, it will print up to 22x17inch, but has no roll facility, the BW output is superb, using the none canned BW profiles, I use Eric Chans which i find to be very good for fine art papers, for colour its accurate and delivers prints with impact and rich colours, with the R2400 you have to manually change black inks when printing on fine art paper, with the 3800 its done automatically depending on which papers you are using, its a large printer but fits well in the small studio with a relatively small footprint considering its classed as a large format printer, anyone who buys this printer will not be disappointed, hope this helps you in your decision

Martin
digital-monochrome fine art black and white landscape print galleries

[Songman45]

Its nice to know the arguement about photographers processing and printing their work has survived and carried over from film to digital. I used to know studio guys who considered it part of the art and craft of the true professional photographer to process negatives and print enlargments. Back then the banter was about dip and dunk versus roller transport and what enlarger heads and what color packs worked. Some of these folks would be insulted that anyone would call himself a photographer who couldn't work the darkroom end of the business. Why, anyone could buy a camera and learn to take pictures only a true photographer could take the image from creation to delivery.

Then came the notion of outsourcing. It became acceptable to have some or all of the processing and printing handled out of house. Aceptable results at an acceptable expense. It continues to this day. Getting the image captured requires enough specialized skill and investment in equipment for most. Printing, mounting, maybe framing are specialties best handled by experts in that field. Besides, the investment in education, time and equipment to do it all would make it prohibitively expensive for even more people to get into the business.

I am amused at the variety of opinions regarding what it takes to be a true professional in this field. Whether its educaton, camera type, printing capibility, marketing and price structures. At one time only occupations requiring a college degree were considered professions. Other vocations were classified as crafts, trades, skilled labor and labor. Now days if a person generates more than 50% of his income from an undertaking he is considered by some a professional.

Back to the original question about printers. I dislike HP's front loading printers. I've owned a couple of them and they were both lousey at feeding paper.

[KrozFan]

I have a small Epson R340 that only prints up to 8.5x11. It's good at what it does, but I wish it printed larger. I like how an 11x14 print matted for a 16x20 frame looks better than an 8x10 in an 11x14 frame. I got it just to play around with but now I really wish I had gotten something at least 13x19.

[Halifax Photographer]

I'm not sure if I thanked you for your response or not,. Thank you. I did not expect such a quick return. I had begun with the Canon 9500 but the problems with not printing full 13X17 is an issue. Too much of a waste of paper when paying a premium for a larger format printer that doesn't print full format. The 10 ink system was a huge plus but now I am thinking the Epson 3800 is the way to go for me. Roll feed was what I was thinking about but the additional cost is out of my budget. I know the Canon printed excellent B&W but glossy paper was not so great, Epson I was not sure how well the new Ink system was but you have given me some helpful info.

[TonyK]

HP's front loading has some issues.

Thick papers are harder to get through. This is based on past experience, nothing recent.

Unless things have improved, the rollers will, in time, refuse to pick up the paper. Then one resorts to all sorts of tricks to get things right.

My first Epson was a junk $100 printer that turned me off Epsons for a few years. Prior to that I was a Canon printer person. But the R800 sitting next to me changed all that and I get excellent results from it. Would not consider ANY printer that did not use pigmented inks.

Take care,

[Dave R.]

Another HP 9180 owner here. It has far exceeded my expectations. The build quality is much better than any epson I considered and frankly the printing is on par if not better. That of course IMHO. Time will tell, but I couldn't be happier with my decision. Never have been a conformist and go with what everyone else buys...IE epson and canon are examples with printers. Not ranking on them as they have a reputation that was earned. Just saying they are not the only game in town. Another truth, I would not have bought the HP had I not gotten it for 1/2 of normal retail. I don't think the prices for printers are anything more than over priced, so I simply waited for the right opportunity. It is nice getting the shot in the morning and having it printed and even hung on the wall before dinner is on the table.

[Paul Shields]

I agree, the B9180 is really very well built. Not had any problems with front loading yet, but I think they're a bargain at the moment (certainly in the UK). I got the HP badged eye-one calibrator version for a lot less than an equivalent Epson. Absolutely love the printer so far .

[SRead]

Would not buy another Epson 3800 refurbished. Went through five of them and all had clogging problems. Finally Epson sent me a new 3800 at no additional charge. It has worked like a charm. The Epson support team was quite helpful. Would suggest buying the additional warranty, just in case.

[TonyK]

I shy away from re-conditioned and refurbished items, especially printers. The manufacturers can say whatever they like but unless it is new with every component there could still be an issue.

Others have better experiences but as sRead just wrote there is still the risk of getting bad items and the next time the manufacturer might just continue sending refurbished items.

[dx3po]

Originally Posted by jfrancho
I have total control over the finished product through WHCC. I get EXACTLY what I see on my screen, because they have professionals (i.e. Trained and Certified) operating, maintaining, and testing the output. Like I said, if you spitting out a few 11x14's for a sale in a booth or to hang in an opening, then by all means, print your own. If your printing a $1200 wedding order, let a PRO LAB do it. And, BTW, just because I let the lab do my prints, I still do the matting and framing myself. Not because I enjoy the "control" since my framer will do anything I ask for, but because it is less expensive. However, I save a lot of time by getting the print from lab, already on mat board. Plus there are never any bubbles or air pockets. Oh, yeah, you can a another thousand bucks to price of entry if you want to add a texture to the print. For seniors and other portraits, this adds a lot to the perceived value, yet it only casts a small amount when ordered from the lab. You have to go a step beyond "plain" prints in a land where everyone has a digital camera and a smugmug account

I use to think like you guys until I purchased my Canon ipf6100. The quality I’m getting is as good or better then what I was getting from WHCC. I will still use them for 4x6 proofs but for large prints I will do my own.

Dan