cindysingleton

Which one should I get? I've had an Epson Stylus 600 that has given me NO problems for 7 years, so I am naturally drawn to Epson. I'd like to do my own fine art and portrait printing so I can control the quality and delivery time myself. Considering just the print quality and headache production . . . which one is best?

~Cindy

yrbkmgr

I had the same 600, and when it died, I had to choose as well. I happened to choose the Epson 1280, but that Canon was a strong contender. In the end it boiled down to familiarity, and my (probably unfounded) fear that I wouldn't get as comprehensive support with the Canon in terms of Color Management and profiles, since Canon has a smaller user base, and my guess was that less work had been done. That's another way to say, if I have trouble with my epson, there are plenty of people who can help.

That said, that Canon is a NICE printer, and someone in this forum who I respect uses it, so I suspect that it'll be hard to go wrong.

Peace,
Tony

daryl pritchard

Hi Cindy,

I have no experience with either printer, but I don't see Canon claiming any more than a 25-year period for lighfastness, whereas Epson claims as much as 80 years for the 2200 with their UltraChrome inks. I'm guessing that the 2200 is overall more likely to be the printer considered recommended for archival printing, so it may hold an edge over the i9100.

Regards,

Daryl

nospam

I ask where is the proof of the 80 years or even the 25 years. Their
accelerated testing methods and rating are based on museum type display and
storage. Read the fine print. In real life I doubt either one hanging on a
wall in light is going to last.

I have the i9100 and like it a lot. I like the speed and quality. The speed
is much better than then Epson for the same size print. The borderless
printing is also nice, but the Epson I guess has that as well.

Myself, I wouldn't spend the extra money for the Epson simply because they
say the prints will last for 80 years. I have read too many studies and
Epson's own fine print to believe it. That say I do think the pigmented inks
will last longer than regular type inks. But, in the end I don't think they
will last that much longer. Certainly not enough to warrant the higher price
for the Epson. If there are other things about the Epson that draws you to
it besides the light fastness then that is another story. But, if that is
the only reason it isn't a good enough one for the extra cost.

R


any more than a 25-year period for lighfastness, whereas Epson claims as
much as 80 years for the 2200 with their UltraChrome inks. I'm guessing that
the 2200 is overall more likely to be the printer considered recommended for
archival printing, so it may hold an edge over the i9100.

lawrence hudetz

Cindy, Don't overlook the difference in printing speeds. I have a 9000, and with a carefully made profile, I get beautiful B&W as well as color, at 4x to 5x the speed of a 2200. And, unless you are fussy, the Canon profiles work really well.

That being said, I probably will also buy at least the 2200, or maybe the 7600. Why? Because the print life differences. And, as long as I may be doing it, I may as well go for the larger printer. (The 7600 prints from rolls 24" wide)

Wilhelm is going to publish life tests on the 9000 or 9100 (same inks). I will wait for his results.

At any rate, I will have the S9000 around because I can see tests at full size so much faster, and if the archival output isn't needed well, I'll deliver on that printer.

daryl pritchard

For the moment I can only dream of having a nicer printer than my current Epson 1270. The next $$$ I spend are more likely to be on a new PC than a printer since the 1280 already handles 13x19-inch prints albeit although it is slower and uses older generation inks than the latest crop of printers. I figure claims are to be taken with a grain of salt, but with Epson having most likely invested more money over the long run in producing a wide range of papers and printers, their "80-year prints" should likely outlast Canon's "25-year prints" even if not by a seemingly 3 times longer span. Until more subtantial data is presented, I'd probably favor the Epson for archival quality printing but the Canon if speed and improved productivity is the higher priority. No doubt both companies make excellent printers. I started with Canon but now use Epson. Just like working in a darkroom that found me thinking after a while that 8x10" prints were "small" and thus moving up to 11x14" prints, I'm almost getting to where 13x19" seems small and 24" wide would be great...but out of my price range. 44" would be super, but darned expensive for just a home hobbyist.

lawrence hudetz

"If you can't make them good, make them big."

Old photographer's Proverb

I don't think there is any difference in print life between DYE printers like the 1280 of Epson and the S9000/9100. It is quite dependent on the paper, and Canon doesn't have the papers that Epson does. So, I print on Epson Enhanced Matte. My own test of the Epson 870 vs.9000 shows comparable life expectancy.

q photo

Cindy,

Most people doing professional work do use Epson printers. There has
to be more than one or two reasons why this is so. I do wedding photography and use a digital camera for the ceremony only. My Epson 1270 serves me well for this, and the restoration work of photos that I do on a daily basis. Yes, I am fussy about correct color and resolution. Epson profiles serve me very well. I know that my 1270 is not perfect but no printer is going to be perfect. Printing speed is not my main concern, quality is. Most pros use Epson, period.

Q Photo

burton ogden <>

Robert,

I do think the pigmented inks will last longer than regular type inks.
But, in the end I don't think they will last that much longer.


Solid pigments are very permanent. Paintings in museums show that solid pigments will last hundreds of years. Cave paintings show that solid pigments will last thousands of years. And the Painted Desert in Arizona shows that solid pigments will last millions of years, even with lots of sun exposure.

Cavemen may have also painted with the colored juices of berries, but those organic dyes will have long disappeared, even in the low light levels of the caves. But the carbon black, the iron oxide and other solid pigments are permanent and light exposure does not affect them.

Epson's 80-year figure for their Ultrachrome pigmented prints is based more on the breakdown of the paper of the print than the solid pigments. When you are printing with solid pigments, the paper becomes the weakest link.

Epson supplies several archival papers and for archival papers the 80-year figure is probably conservative. Even papyrus did fairly well for the Egyptians. But if the paper is at all archival, when you are printing with "berry juice" the dye colors are the weakest link.

-- Burton --

lawrence hudetz

The reason Epson dominates is they were first with the most. The Canon S series is not to be trifled with. They are a professional printer, the way that PC is as "professional" as Mac. The only reason to do an Epson dye base printer is either ink availability in your area or prejudice.