Printer Opinions Wanted

rrqst · Jan 14, 2002

Does anyone have any thoughts on the pro's and cons of various types/formats of photo printers.

I mostly do wedding photography and I'm looking to get my own printer for printing my work. I will be printing mostly 8x10's.

I've used numerous inkjet printers and I am fairly happy with the overall look of there prints but the ink is very susceptible to water damage and the prints don't really look/feel professional. So I'm looking for a more "professional," more stable format.

My primary criteria for a photo printer are: 1) The look and feel of a "photo lab" print with good/excellent image quality; 2) Water resistant (I realize that any photo can be damaged by water/liquid but inkjet photos are just too susceptible for my comfort level; 3) Archival...must last 25 years at high quality; 4) Glossy and Matte paper availability; and finally 5) Cost per print

I’ve been looking mostly at color laser printers and dye/sub. There are a couple of printers that seem like they might work well. One is the Fuji Pictrography 3000 but it sells for $3000+. Does any one know if it's that much better than the color lasers which sell for under $2000 or the low cost dye subs (including the Olympus P-400...$700).

I know that there are dozens if not hundreds of "photo" printers out there. My biggest problem is figuring out which format will work best for my needs. Any thoughts are appreciated.

--
Robert

franzhaus · Jan 14, 2002

If Money is no object, go for the Fuji, A friend of mine uses it for his studio work and both he and his clients love it. I didn't care for the feel of it and the finish(matte) but that is a personal opinion, The Epson Photo 890 and the 1280 printers(8x10 and 11x14) print great looking ink jet prints, and using the Premium Matte Lustre paper, it looks like Kodak quality paper and photo quality, not a bad choice for under $500.00, The Kodak dye subs are great, but once again I didn;t care for the finish, and feel of the paper, not quite what you get from the labs, The same with the Olympus, and their actual print size is 7 1/2x10, not 8x10, nice quality. If I had the money, I would go for the fuji, you won't be disappointed, otherwise I would get the 1280 and the Matte paper, looks just like Kodak "E" surface!

rrqst said:
Does anyone have any thoughts on the pro's and cons of various
types/formats of photo printers.

I mostly do wedding photography and I'm looking to get my own
printer for printing my work. I will be printing mostly 8x10's.

I've used numerous inkjet printers and I am fairly happy with the
overall look of there prints but the ink is very susceptible to
water damage and the prints don't really look/feel professional. So
I'm looking for a more "professional," more stable format.

My primary criteria for a photo printer are: 1) The look and feel
of a "photo lab" print with good/excellent image quality; 2) Water
resistant (I realize that any photo can be damaged by water/liquid
but inkjet photos are just too susceptible for my comfort level; 3)
Archival...must last 25 years at high quality; 4) Glossy and Matte
paper availability; and finally 5) Cost per print

I’ve been looking mostly at color laser printers and dye/sub. There
are a couple of printers that seem like they might work well. One
is the Fuji Pictrography 3000 but it sells for $3000+. Does any one
know if it's that much better than the color lasers which sell for
under $2000 or the low cost dye subs (including the Olympus
P-400...$700).

I know that there are dozens if not hundreds of "photo" printers
out there. My biggest problem is figuring out which format will
work best for my needs. Any thoughts are appreciated.

--
Robert

rrqst · Jan 15, 2002

franzhaus,

Thanks for replying. Do you know much about the process involved with the Fuji Pictro, and what exactly didn't you like about it? If set next to a "lab" print could you tell the difference, and if so how?

Finally, do you know if the 1280 uses the pigment inks?

Thanks again!

Robert

franzhaus said:
rrqst said:

Does anyone have any thoughts on the pro's and cons of various
types/formats of photo printers.

I mostly do wedding photography and I'm looking to get my own
printer for printing my work. I will be printing mostly 8x10's.

I've used numerous inkjet printers and I am fairly happy with the
overall look of there prints but the ink is very susceptible to
water damage and the prints don't really look/feel professional. So
I'm looking for a more "professional," more stable format.

My primary criteria for a photo printer are: 1) The look and feel
of a "photo lab" print with good/excellent image quality; 2) Water
resistant (I realize that any photo can be damaged by water/liquid
but inkjet photos are just too susceptible for my comfort level; 3)
Archival...must last 25 years at high quality; 4) Glossy and Matte
paper availability; and finally 5) Cost per print

I’ve been looking mostly at color laser printers and dye/sub. There
are a couple of printers that seem like they might work well. One
is the Fuji Pictrography 3000 but it sells for $3000+. Does any one
know if it's that much better than the color lasers which sell for
under $2000 or the low cost dye subs (including the Olympus
P-400...$700).

I know that there are dozens if not hundreds of "photo" printers
out there. My biggest problem is figuring out which format will
work best for my needs. Any thoughts are appreciated.

--
Robert

Click to expand...

Search

Printer Opinions Wanted

rrqst

Member

franzhaus

Guest

rrqst

Member

Keyboard shortcuts