Trying to choose a printer

[coops]

I have several shows coming up this year and my skills using an inkjet printer are far more developed than my skills on the enlarger. So I plan to scan a few b&w 4x5's and print on either the Epson 3800 or the HP B9180. I am having a hard time justifying the cost of the Epson, but then I don't want to shoot myself the first time I want a print bigger than 13". I do not plan on printing in color at all. Much cheaper to let the lab do it.
Anyone here with experience of one or both of these? Would like to hear your experiences.

Thanks

[D. Bryant]

I have several shows coming up this year and my skills using an inkjet printer are far more developed than my skills on the enlarger. So I plan to scan a few b&w 4x5's and print on either the Epson 3800 or the HP B9180. I am having a hard time justifying the cost of the Epson, but then I don't want to shoot myself the first time I want a print bigger than 13". I do not plan on printing in color at all. Much cheaper to let the lab do it.
Anyone here with experience of one or both of these? Would like to hear your experiences.

Thanks
If you can afford the extra expense purchase the Epson 3800. It's definitly superior to the HP 9180 and is supported by QTR.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[Greg Lockrey]

If you can afford the extra expense purchase the Epson 3800. It's definitly superior to the HP 9180 and is supported by QTR.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

Same here.

[BarryS]

I highly recommend the Epson 3800. Mine paid for itself in print sales within a few months of purchase. Once you start printing some 16x20's, you'll wonder why you ever considered a smaller printer. Big prints sell way better than small prints and a 17" carriage printer isn't even big these days.

[anchored]

Main negative (from a personal standpoint) of both of these printers... no option for paper roll feeds. If you find yourself oft-times cropping to other-than-standard 16"x20" prints, having a machine that only uses sheet paper can be rather limiting to print sizes you can run. I've found roll feed machines invaluable.

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned four printers, all Epsons, the 1160, 1280, 2200, and now the 3800. All have been excellent printers, I've never had any clogging or other significant problems with any of them. Epson's customer service seems to be pretty good most of the time in my limited experience. Epson has been making printers for serious photographers for quite a while. HP is new at that market. I've never been tempted by any of the HP (or Canon) printers. I've never missed the lack of a roll paper feature on the 3800, when I crop to an odd size I just trim the paper.

[BarryS]

I occasionally do panos on my 3800 and I have a roll of paper that I can cut for extra long sheets. I have some 17" X 38" sheets available for those relatively rare occasions. A roll feed is much more useful for production work where you're printing large jobs unattended.

[Kuzano]

I had a 9180 and sold it almost immediately when I found out the price of the cartridges. $30 plus per cartridge. I was so blown away by that pricing, I didn't even bother to see what the alternatives were.

My recollection from discussions on the Epson 3800 is that aside from the larger format, the larger ink cartridges and pricing bring the payback way down for the printer.

[jetcode]

Not to run contrary to Epson printer success (I've had mine with a pair of 2200) I really like the Canon ipf5100 and ipf6100 print quality and the price is right.

[Huib]

I'm also very pleased about/with the Canon 5100. Here in the Netherlands fairly cheap, price dropped gradually last few weeks to : 1400 euro's. Not as small as an Epson 3800 though...

I have the 5100 since february 08, seems to be reasonable frugal with inks, printed not much yet (according printer counter 15.6 m2/168.5 sq.f) 90% B&W, 10%color. Alle inks, except 2 are still at the initial level of 60% (canon supplies 90ml starters instead of the retail 130ml ones), only 2 grey ink cartridges have now dropped to 20%. I leave the printer always on standby, once a day it wakes up and does a nozzle check/clean. After longer periods of inactivity (I estimate 4 to 5 days) it does a nozzle check/clean right before it will print the file. Occasionally I've also seen it come shortly online and the display says than: checking Humidity/Temperature.

Warning: This machine is responsable for the fact that I closed the darkroom....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2725420924_3bed3764e6_o.jpg

[Charles]

Not to run contrary to Epson printer success (I've had mine with a pair of 2200) I really like the Canon ipf5100 and ipf6100 print quality and the price is right.

My experience also with the ipf8000. It's been superb, never clogged, hasn't failed. Canon support has been great everytime I've had a question and sometimes after all the voice prompts and I've been directed to the right department, the line has been answered on the first ring with a live voice in Virginia not India.

I wish my HP and Epson experiences had been even remotely as satisfying.

[audioexcels]

I'm also in the boat for a printer of the larger size. Curious what everyone thinks about the quality of the Epson 3800 vs. pro lab based printers?

[Photomagica]

I'll add my voice to those advocating the Epson 3800. I sold my Epson 4000 and went to the 3800 specifically to get superior B&W results. I have used it with both Quad Tone RIP and with the Epson advanced B&W driver.

The results have been excellent, with none of the bronzing that, to my eye, made B&W unacceptable with Epson K2 inks on non-matte papers. The results are so good that I had a wierd gestalt experience going though a stack of mounted prints. I pulled one up and looked at it convinced it was an Epson 3800 image. Then it struck me that I hadn't scanned that negative! I looked with a magnifier and I could see my spotting marks - so it was indeed an air dried glossy silver print. In other words it can be hard to tell a well made E3800 print from a well made silver print.

I've had steady sales of my work in both B&W and color from the Epson 3800 at the Gallery of Photographic Arts - Canada in Art Central in Calgary. If your goal is gallery quality prints, this is a competent machine.
Photomagica

[ilikedags]

The results have been excellent, with none of the bronzing that, to my eye, made B&W unacceptable with Epson K2 inks on non-matte papers. Photomagica

Regarding the bronzing on B&W Epson K2 prints,did you try spraying a lacquer fixative on the surface of the prints (such as the ones used for soft pastels)? I have been recommended by several people to try this.

In answer to the post, I have only used Epson printers and have been happy with the results. I also recommend a printer that allows you to use roll paper.

[namartinnz]

I have an Epson 4000 for my secondary or 1 off prints. My primary printer is an HP Z3100 44". Using QTR quadtone rip and Lyson Printguard any virtually all bronzing was eliminated. The B&W prints were nearly as good as the Z3100.

[mccormickstudio]

Epson is selling the 3800 refurbished in it's clearance center (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccHome.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes) for $995. Seems like a good deal to me.

[BarryS]

Epson is selling the 3800 refurbished in it's clearance center (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccHome.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes) for $995. Seems like a good deal to me.

My advice is to stay away from 3800 refurbs. In some cases the printers are abused and in very bad shape and the refurbishment process is very limited. I've heard horror stories of thrashed printers that developed problems very quickly. A brand new 3800 can be easily found for $1100-$1200 shipped.

[mdd99]

Canon gets my vote.

[neil poulsen]

I would also stay away from a refurbished. I have a friend who purchased a refurbished Epson scanner, and during my last visit, the scanner was exhibiting lines in the print. Not for me!