 Julie L. Curiel |
To Buy or Not to Buy a Printer I am debating whether or not to buy my own photo printer. I would like to buy the Epson Stylus 2200 but this is a big investment. I have just started my own photography business which at this point, is still getting off the ground. I do a variety of work- portratis, landscapes, fine art etc. Right now I'm not sure what my printing demands are going to be so it's hard to know if I'm going to save money or waste money buying my own printer. Would it just be easier to send my photos off to a pro lab that could do all the work for me? I like the thought of having the control of how my photos turn out and being about to match colors more accurately. Does doing your own printing take a lot of extra time and energy? Does anyone have this specific printer? If so, how often do the ink cartridges need to be replaced in general? I guess I'm just kinda talking in circles here because in the end it's probably all about the money I make in whether it would eventually be a good investment for me. Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
I'm probably in about the same boat you are. I am going to buy an Epson 2200. The reason is because I want to be able to print. I get tired of constantly going to the lab for reprints. Also, for my own persoal stuff, it is a much easier way to print images rather than bothering with a lab. It would be nice to just pull an image off my coputer and print it. I also shoot all film. This gets a little expensive. this weekend I was experimenting and shot 13 rolls of film. That will cost me a good bundle. Therefore, I am looking to get a digital camera for two reasons. First, I need some experimentation time, and it drives me crazy waiting to see the results. Secondly, my clients constantly ask for it. So, along with the printer, I also want a digital camera. Currently, I have my "good" images scanned by the lab for high res perfect scans. My scanner is really crummy. Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
Julie L. Curiel |
If you go digital, go digital SLR. I wish I would have last year when I was guying a new camera. I bought instead an upscale point and shoot that allows me to shoot in manual mode and has supurb macro settings but now I'm wanting to upgrade! But that will have to wait a little while until I have a few thousand extra bucks laying around! You'll like digital since you don't have to print anything you don't want to. As for the printer, I'm still trying to decide.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Wing Wong |
Well, if you are aiming for the 2200, then you are probably thinking long-term investment. At $500-$700, the 2200 is pricey. :) If you want to go partway first and don't need the 13" width, you can go with an 8x10 printer. Epson C84 or any of the Durabrite ink type printers will give you a good output. The price range will be $99-$300. As for a digital camera, if you are getting up to 4MP, just about any would be okay. Though I would lean towards Canon A80, S400, and the G3. For 5MP and up, I would go with the Canon Digital Rebel, 10D, Fuji S2 Pro, and Nikon D70. Reason is that once you get around 5MP or more, the actual size of each pixel becomes so small that you will get ridiculous amounts of noise. I own a Minolta Dimage A1(5MP)(2/3" sensor) and the noise shows even on ISO100 shots. The Sony F828 is an 8MP and has some noise, but is very managable. All of the 5MP+ cameras listed about cost $900+. The A80/S400 cost about $250-$400. The extra money does count for something. Check out www.dpreview.com for more in-depth reviews of cameras and what you can or cannot get out of them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Gasawski |
Julie: I recently went through what you are experiencing and decided on Epson 1280. It is about $300. less expensive than the 2200. It is capable of printing up to 13" x 19" paper. It will print longer if you use a roll but 13x19 is as large as I have printed. I haven't had any problems with it and I have heard the 2200 can be a pain. I really think it depends on what you want to do with your work. My work requires me to present sizes from 4x6 to 13x19. If you want a max size of 8"x10" there are many less expensive options. Decide what you wish to do with your work. If you want to sell framed prints, then opt for the 2200 or 1280. The major differences are the media they will print on and the ink cartridges. You should take a look at the Epson web site for a list of differences. Epson also sells refurbished stuff on their site. Hope all this helps. John Gasawski
|
|
|
|
||
|
Wing Wong |
The differences between the 1280 and the 2200 would basically be the inks used and how the ink cartridges are grouped. In the case of inks, the 1280 uses photo dye inks. Ie, the inks are transparent and soak into the media. If you don't need more than say 15-20 years of display life from the print, then there is nothing wrong with the 1280 and other dye inks. The inks will also work with a wider range of papers than say pigmented inks. The 2200 uses pigmented inks otherwise known as "ultra-chrome" inks. They are lightfast and have a rated life of 50+ years, depending on the paper they are outputted on. The downside of pigmented inks is a reduced color gamut when compared to dye inks and a tendency to flake off when rubbed. The problems experienced by some with the 2200 is that the paper needs to be carefully selected. Otherwise, you will get alot of bronzing on your prints. The cartridges on the 2200 are seperate for each color. The cartridges for the 1280 are grouped into one cartridge for the colors. So on the 1280, when you run out of say... magenta, you need to replace the whole cartridge with all the unused colors. With the 2200 and other seperate ink cartridge printers, you only replace what you have run out of.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Julie L. Curiel |
Thanks everyone. You're explainations have been most helpful. I still don't know yet if I'm going to buy one though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||