Top 10 printers for 2014

[Shadowman]

Some that made the list are three years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ-KjhUgTjM

[Colin Southern]

... according to them ...

[Richard Lundberg]

Some are four ink. Please…… wake up, Rip Van Winkle.

[Shadowman]

Colin and Richard,

Like I said, some in the list were older models. Those of interest were the battery charged models, a printing nightmare for the road.

[JR1]

Some are four ink. Please…… wake up, Rip Van Winkle.

What is wrong with 4 ink models, I still run my business printing on the move with my Canon ix4000 which produces excellent quality prints. The running costs are low and quality great.

[Richard Lundberg]

gamut

[Colin Southern]

Colin and Richard,

Like I said, some in the list were older models. Those of interest were the battery charged models, a printing nightmare for the road.

To be honest, I saw that "review" as being nothing more than a mechanism for them to raise awareness of their video editing software.

Individual requirements vary so much it makes lists like that worthless; case in point - not a single one of those printers even make it out of the starting blocks as far as I'm concerned because 100% of my printing requires 24 inch wide media.

I could compile my list of the ten best printers and it would have zero in common with their list - without context both lists are meaningless.

[Shadowman]

To be honest, I saw that "review" as being nothing more than a mechanism for them to raise awareness of their video editing software.

Individual requirements vary so much it makes lists like that worthless; case in point - not a single one of those printers even make it out of the starting blocks as far as I'm concerned because 100% of my printing requires 24 inch wide media.

I could compile my list of the ten best printers and it would have zero in common with their list - without context both lists are meaningless.

I'd be interested in at least the top 3.

[Shadowman]

Not another Top Printer List

I've just started reviewing these Top 5 printers.

http://printers.toptenreviews.com/wi...rinter-review/

[Shadowman]

For those of you who do full figure portraits and also either print or suggest to end users format sizes:

1. What is your standard print size for (a) single subject standing (b) group standing (c) single subject sitting or kneeling.
2. Depending on your answer to first question, is a 13" minimum width printer adequate for your style ?
3. What would be your minimum width print for the subjects in question #1.

I ask for a couple of reasons, considering new printer and coming from an art background I think of portraits in measurements of head lengths. The typical head length of a human is between six and seven and a half heads. The dimension of a human head is about seven inches. In art you typically wouldn't make a human's head any larger than seven inches, not unless you are painting a fresco on a ceiling, so if you photograph a subject and estimate that the subject's head will be about five inches on the print and the subject's body is about two head lengths wide, you would only be able to fit two people very tightly) on a 19" wide print. Do any of you take into consideration the body shape of your subjects when determining the print format?

[Colin Southern]

For those of you who do full figure portraits and also either print or suggest to end users format sizes:

1. What is your standard print size for (a) single subject standing (b) group standing (c) single subject sitting or kneeling.
2. Depending on your answer to first question, is a 13" minimum width printer adequate for your style ?
3. What would be your minimum width print for the subjects in question #1.

I ask for a couple of reasons, considering new printer and coming from an art background I think of portraits in measurements of head lengths. The typical head length of a human is between six and seven and a half heads. The dimension of a human head is about seven inches. In art you typically wouldn't make a human's head any larger than seven inches, not unless you are painting a fresco on a ceiling, so if you photograph a subject and estimate that the subject's head will be about five inches on the print and the subject's body is about two head lengths wide, you would only be able to fit two people very tightly) on a 19" wide print. Do any of you take into consideration the body shape of your subjects when determining the print format?

Sorry, don't think I can be much help, but for my circumstance.

1. How long is a piece of string? It's totally driven by client specifications & needs; sometimes it's a square canvas of kids - other times it's a print of a departed loved one. General rule-of-thumb is don't print greater than 80% of "real life" size; obviously not an issue for most full-length (rule doesn't really apply to that anyway) - more for head shots and head and shoulders. So to put a number on it - personally - it can be anything from passport photo size to 22 x 33" inch for people (although, as I said above, these days approx 100% for me is large format) (no money in the small stuff unless it's a longer run or charged on an hourly basis).

2. No - not for me, but that's not really relevant -- it all depends on what YOU want to do with it. If you're not going to be printing on canvas then you can "beef up" and also adjust aspect ratios by messing with matting around smaller prints (the frame can add it it a lot as well).

3. For me, 22 inches.

[Shadowman]

Sorry, don't think I can be much help, but for my circumstance.

1. How long is a piece of string? It's totally driven by client specifications & needs; sometimes it's a square canvas of kids - other times it's a print of a departed loved one. General rule-of-thumb is don't print greater than 80% of "real life" size; obviously not an issue for most full-length (rule doesn't really apply to that anyway) - more for head shots and head and shoulders. So to put a number on it - personally - it can be anything from passport photo size to 22 x 33" inch for people (although, as I said above, these days approx 100% for me is large format) (no money in the small stuff unless it's a longer run or charged on an hourly basis).

2. No - not for me, but that's not really relevant -- it all depends on what YOU want to do with it. If you're not going to be printing on canvas then you can "beef up" and also adjust aspect ratios by messing with matting around smaller prints (the frame can add it it a lot as well).

3. For me, 22 inches.

Colin,

Thanks for the response.

You've posted images of single and two person shots, do they usually request large or small prints?

In the previous thread on printers, there were six printers which had a maximum width of 13 inches and some had maximum lengths between 19 and 44 inches. I can see the use for a printer with those specifications for specific prints, such as a panorama or perhaps a tall building, maybe a group portrait. I don't think those dimensions would be adequate enough for shots with two people.

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

Thanks for the response.

You've posted images of single and two person shots, do they usually request large or small prints?

In the previous thread on printers, there were six printers which had a maximum width of 13 inches and some had maximum lengths between 19 and 44 inches. I can see the use for a printer with those specifications for specific prints, such as a panorama or perhaps a tall building, maybe a group portrait. I don't think those dimensions would be adequate enough for shots with two people.

If they're of young ladies then they usually only ever end up on Facebook (harsh reality!)

If they're something parents pay for then they usually end up on canvas, which means invariably 24" media (often as 22 x 22" print area).

Just keep in mind that inkjet printers don't have any kind of protection over the finished print ... so you can't handle them like you would a postcard size from the local photo shops; they need to be mounted behind glass or they'll (a) scratch if stacked and/or (b) absorb fingerprints better than what the police use when processing suspects. Unfortunately. Canvas is different, but still needs to be over-sprayed, and most of the types of printer you're looking at won't handle it well, if at all.

You probably won't get any call for extreme aspect ratio vertical prints, but they can certainly be used for great effect for horizontals. A 13 x 19 I would find limiting, but a 13 x 44 opens up a whole host of options when matted and framed professionally (eg we're into stuff with the potential to be sold here), but framing isn't cheap, and I'd personally be wanting to research your ink/media longevity data (I've seen some inksets start to fade in a matter of months, which is one hell of a liability if you're selling them, and a PITA regardless).

If you're looking at commercial quality and build, with good longevity, then dare I suggest the Epson 4880 with Lyson inks as being a bullet-proof solution (I use it's bigger brother - the Epson 7800). These are the "Sherman tank" work-horses of the industry; a lot of the reviewed ones I wouldn't trust to handle anything more than light printing.

[Shadowman]

If they're of young ladies then they usually only ever end up on Facebook (harsh reality!)

If they're something parents pay for then they usually end up on canvas, which means invariably 24" media (often as 22 x 22" print area).

Just keep in mind that inkjet printers don't have any kind of protection over the finished print ... so you can't handle them like you would a postcard size from the local photo shops; they need to be mounted behind glass or they'll (a) scratch if stacked and/or (b) absorb fingerprints better than what the police use when processing suspects. Unfortunately. Canvas is different, but still needs to be over-sprayed, and most of the types of printer you're looking at won't handle it well, if at all.

You probably won't get any call for extreme aspect ratio vertical prints, but they can certainly be used for great effect for horizontals. A 13 x 19 I would find limiting, but a 13 x 44 opens up a whole host of options when matted and framed professionally (eg we're into stuff with the potential to be sold here), but framing isn't cheap, and I'd personally be wanting to research your ink/media longevity data (I've seen some inksets start to fade in a matter of months, which is one hell of a liability if you're selling them, and a PITA regardless).

If you're looking at commercial quality and build, with good longevity, then dare I suggest the Epson 4880 with Lyson inks as being a bullet-proof solution (I use it's bigger brother - the Epson 7800). These are the "Sherman tank" work-horses of the industry; a lot of the reviewed ones I wouldn't trust to handle anything more than light printing.

Thanks, I'll take all of this into consideration and look into the Epson model.

[Shadowman]

Colin,

One other question about doing your own printing. What's the maximum number of errors you can afford on a print job (meaning you have to redo) before you consider the job unprofitable? Obviously one is too many. I'm doing as much research as possible and trial and error to limit this possibility. Some printer manufacturer's estimate the cost of a print at about $0.81 each, which I think is very low, for an 8" x10" image.

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

One other question about doing your own printing. What's the maximum number of errors you can afford on a print job (meaning you have to redo) before you consider the job unprofitable? Obviously one is too many. I'm doing as much research as possible and trial and error to limit this possibility. Some printer manufacturer's estimate the cost of a print at about $0.81 each, which I think is very low, for an 8" x10" image.

There are a lot of variables, unfortunately, but the biggest one is time - there's nothing worse than fluffing around for 4 hours and only getting $80 of revenue (less costs). Time aside, it just comes down to the cost of your consumables; paper is dirt cheap (a 30m role of 185gsm satin finish only costs around $180) (24" media). Inks are a different story; Epson ink is great, but it costs a LOT (over $2000 to fill up my printer). Lyson ink is slightly better and around 1/3 of the cost. A full A1 print may only use around 4 to 5 ml of ink, but if the printer goes through a self-cleaning cycle if it hasn't been used for a while then that can use 20ml. Absolute worst combination is someone wanting a passport photo when the printer hasn't been used for a week, when using original inks - ink alone can cost you $20.

When pricing prints, the cost of the paper + ink is minor - it's more about compensating for your time and generating a margin to pay the printer.

But to answer the question - in NZD - if I were laying up an 8" print 3 wide, I'd get around 9 per square meter - so that's around 78c + tax each allowing for paper and ink. But that figure is so "romanticized" it's not even funny. Difference between theory and practice is huge with things like that.

[Shadowman]

There are a lot of variables, unfortunately, but the biggest one is time - there's nothing worse than fluffing around for 4 hours and only getting $80 of revenue (less costs). Time aside, it just comes down to the cost of your consumables; paper is dirt cheap (a 30m role of 185gsm satin finish only costs around $180) (24" media). Inks are a different story; Epson ink is great, but it costs a LOT (over $2000 to fill up my printer). Lyson ink is slightly better and around 1/3 of the cost. A full A1 print may only use around 4 to 5 ml of ink, but if the printer goes through a self-cleaning cycle if it hasn't been used for a while then that can use 20ml. Absolute worst combination is someone wanting a passport photo when the printer hasn't been used for a week, when using original inks - ink alone can cost you $20.

When pricing prints, the cost of the paper + ink is minor - it's more about compensating for your time and generating a margin to pay the printer.

But to answer the question - in NZD - if I were laying up an 8" print 3 wide, I'd get around 9 per square meter - so that's around 78c + tax each allowing for paper and ink. But that figure is so "romanticized" it's not even funny. Difference between theory and practice is huge with things like that.

Thank you, all of this information has been very helpful.