The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Which Epson printer with Snow Leopard?
- Thread starter durrIII
- Start date
bensonga
Well-known member
Hi Durr,
Go for the 3880....then you'll be all set for the 17x22 print exchange in 2010!
That's the printer on my Christmas wish list.
Gary
T
tetsrfun
Guest
3880... but if you don't print Matte and don't need to swap Blacks, Epson has extended the $500 rebate on the 4880.
Steve
Steve
Dale Allyn
New member
This isn't a proper post, in that it's not an answer to your question... but Epson isn't the only solution if you're considering a printer change. Canon has done a much better job with regard to the software problems with SL as well as with the matte black/photo black ink situation IMHO. (Canon properly circumvents the ColorSync handoff issue that some drivers do not.) Epson is surely the 800lb gorilla in the room, but I refuse to buy their printers which require any purge (even "minimal") to simply change paper types.
Epson output is excellent, as is the output of the Canon imagePROGRAF printers. Canon provides drivers which properly deal with Apple's current ColorSync woes, as well as provides a nice Photoshop plugin for handling 16-bit (or 32-bit) printing tasks. And according to Wilhelm Image Research, Canon inks rank very highly with regard to longevity (higher than Epson, lower than HP, using common paper options).
To be fair, Canon printers have their issues just as any do, but until I can print matte and semi-gloss prints interchangeably with ZERO ink loss I won't buy an Epson printer. I love my Canon iPF printers, though I know that there are ways in which the Epsons excel too. Lots of photographers love their Epson printers and justifiably so, but for the printing styles of some, there are better choices available.
Epson output is excellent, as is the output of the Canon imagePROGRAF printers. Canon provides drivers which properly deal with Apple's current ColorSync woes, as well as provides a nice Photoshop plugin for handling 16-bit (or 32-bit) printing tasks. And according to Wilhelm Image Research, Canon inks rank very highly with regard to longevity (higher than Epson, lower than HP, using common paper options).
To be fair, Canon printers have their issues just as any do, but until I can print matte and semi-gloss prints interchangeably with ZERO ink loss I won't buy an Epson printer. I love my Canon iPF printers, though I know that there are ways in which the Epsons excel too. Lots of photographers love their Epson printers and justifiably so, but for the printing styles of some, there are better choices available.
bensonga
Well-known member
Hi Dale,
I certainly agree that Canon and HP are very competitive with Epson these days and I don't really know which works best with SL (one would hope that for any of these companies the problems will be sorted out before too long).
Which Canon iPF printer do you have? I have been really tempted to get the iPF9000 dye ink printer because quite frankly, I love the look of dye ink prints on glossy paper. Not really happy with my Epson 2400/2200 on glossy paper....still use my 1280 for glossy color prints. I do like the Epson 3880 for having the PK and MK inks installed at the same time with minimal ink loss during purging...much better than the 4880 in that regard, but from what I hear, not as good at paper handling etc.
Gary
I certainly agree that Canon and HP are very competitive with Epson these days and I don't really know which works best with SL (one would hope that for any of these companies the problems will be sorted out before too long).
Which Canon iPF printer do you have? I have been really tempted to get the iPF9000 dye ink printer because quite frankly, I love the look of dye ink prints on glossy paper. Not really happy with my Epson 2400/2200 on glossy paper....still use my 1280 for glossy color prints. I do like the Epson 3880 for having the PK and MK inks installed at the same time with minimal ink loss during purging...much better than the 4880 in that regard, but from what I hear, not as good at paper handling etc.
Gary
Dale Allyn
New member
Hi Gary,
I'm not aware of dye-based ink printers in the iPF line, other than the CAD and other design stuff (though that doesn't mean much). I'm only aware of the pigment ink printers using Lucia inks. I'm interested only in the 12-ink models, and therefore also don't follow any of the 8-ink models. Perhaps there are models that I've not seen.
I have two iPF5000s and looking to add a 6100 or possibly 8100. One 5000 is converted to act like a 5100 (aka "5050"). The 9000/9100 is larger than I need. I really like 16" prints, which is my primary print size, but I'd like to print on 24" paper now. I don't need 60" for what I do, though I could find use for 30" wide or so. Still, most of my photos are requested at 16x22 or 16x24, with some requests for prints in the 24xXX range. I may go to the 8100, as it probably makes more sense than limiting to 24", but don't see a need for the 9100 in my case.
Currently, the problem with printing profile targets in SL and CS4 is not a problem on Canon printers (referring to the iPF printers, can't speak for other models). But Eric Chan et al have provided a workaround that seems to be working for Epson users. I don't envy the various "interested parties" when it comes to this stuff. Each products' tweaks affects the others – printer, image editors, OS, etc.
I love the Canon-provided Photoshop plug-in for controlling prints. It functions great, is 16-bit, and a pleasure to use. It's a bit like a "mini-RIP".
Best,
Dale
I'm not aware of dye-based ink printers in the iPF line, other than the CAD and other design stuff (though that doesn't mean much). I'm only aware of the pigment ink printers using Lucia inks. I'm interested only in the 12-ink models, and therefore also don't follow any of the 8-ink models. Perhaps there are models that I've not seen.
I have two iPF5000s and looking to add a 6100 or possibly 8100. One 5000 is converted to act like a 5100 (aka "5050"). The 9000/9100 is larger than I need. I really like 16" prints, which is my primary print size, but I'd like to print on 24" paper now. I don't need 60" for what I do, though I could find use for 30" wide or so. Still, most of my photos are requested at 16x22 or 16x24, with some requests for prints in the 24xXX range. I may go to the 8100, as it probably makes more sense than limiting to 24", but don't see a need for the 9100 in my case.
Currently, the problem with printing profile targets in SL and CS4 is not a problem on Canon printers (referring to the iPF printers, can't speak for other models). But Eric Chan et al have provided a workaround that seems to be working for Epson users. I don't envy the various "interested parties" when it comes to this stuff. Each products' tweaks affects the others – printer, image editors, OS, etc.
I love the Canon-provided Photoshop plug-in for controlling prints. It functions great, is 16-bit, and a pleasure to use. It's a bit like a "mini-RIP".
Best,
Dale
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
I do all my printing with Lightroom and the R2400. I have tested Epson's drivers extensively on Snow Leopard and get results identical to what I get with Leopard. Not so with Photoshop CS4. That leads me to believe the difficulties I hear reported are in Photoshop, not the Epson drivers or Snow Leopard.
Dale Allyn
New member
It appears to be a "combination problem" if you will, in that Apple made choices, Adobe made choices, and Epson did as well. It's true that the problem is apparently confined to CS4, but Canon effectively wrote their drivers and plug-in to properly hand-off the file so that printing controls are as expected. Epson has not yet done so. Some like to blame Apple, others blame Epson, but in the end the blame is of little interest to users.
The bright side is that the community, together with certain key players, work to provide solutions/workarounds while the big dogs deal with the fix.
The bright side is that the community, together with certain key players, work to provide solutions/workarounds while the big dogs deal with the fix.
J
jjlphoto
Guest
The Epson 2200 is quite old, 2003 release date? Epson can't keep supporting those things forever unfortunately. Epson recommends using the Gutenprint driver for the 2200. The OSX printing pathway uses CUPS, Common Unix Printing System. I believe Gutenprint is a spin off from the old GIMP print.
I thought the Canon 9000 had a choice of dye or pigment ink?
I thought the Canon 9000 had a choice of dye or pigment ink?
Dale Allyn
New member
Perhaps there's a configuration of which I am not aware (quite possible), but I am only aware of the imagePROGRAF iPF9000s (8-ink) and the current iPF9100 (12-ink), which both use Lucia pigment inks.
Canon also has imagePROGRAF printers which use dye-based inks, but the numbering convention is iPFxxx.
There are the Pixma Pro9000 and Pro9500, the former being dye-based, the latter is pigment-based. Both are 13x19" printers.
Maybe we crossed lines between the imagePROGRAF (iPF) printers and the Pixma line (big difference) in this thread. And maybe there's another iPF9000 (60") config. that I'm not aware of.
Link to Canon printers
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
I'm with you ... so much silly "blaming" around the net.
Regards CS4, it was obvious from the day it shipped that Adobe was behind on the Mac OS X version ... which doesn't support 64bit ... and have problems in how they're interacting with ColorSync too. I know they're working on it and expect that CS5 will be the 'big' update for Mac OS X, with all new UI code and much improved underpinnings.
The Epson driver does what a driver ought to do in every other application I use, none of which have any problems on Snow Leopard as far as I can tell, so I expect Adobe is pushing hard to get to CS5 for Mac OS X users rather than working hacks to fix CS4.
It all takes a lot of effort and time. I worked at Apple for years and helped developers through these issues. The Adobe Creative Suite is enormous and very complex ... bugs will surface ... and they do a good job of working through them imo.
I have little experience with Canon printers, more with HP. They've all got their plusses and minuses ... I've stuck with Epson since the K3 pigment inks work so well for my photo needs.
bensonga
Well-known member
Sorry the the confusion....it's the Pixma Pro9000 I was interesed in for dye ink printing. I'm not as familiar with the full Canon (especially Pro line) as I should be. Sounds like the iPF printers are the equivalent of Epson's pro line, while the higher end Pixma printers are more like Epson's 1900/2880 etc.
Gary
Dale Allyn
New member
Hi Gary,
The Pixma Pro9000 (13x19") is a fine printer (dye-based inks). I have three friends using them, and if my i9900 would die quietly I would replace it with the Pro9000. I use the i9900 for note cards where I prefer dye-based inks. The Pro9000 is a better printer and has better control over banding, etc.
The Pixma Pro9500 (13x19) printer is a pigment ink printer that had a rocky start. It's been less enthusiastically received by the market.
The two printers above are suitable for normal "desktop" placement, while the imagePROGRAF iPF printers are much larger and models above the iPF5100 actually use a floor stand. The 5100 is larger than the Epson 3800/3880, the other models are closer in size to the Epson counterparts as one moves up the line.
Cheers,
Dale
The Pixma Pro9000 (13x19") is a fine printer (dye-based inks). I have three friends using them, and if my i9900 would die quietly I would replace it with the Pro9000. I use the i9900 for note cards where I prefer dye-based inks. The Pro9000 is a better printer and has better control over banding, etc.
The Pixma Pro9500 (13x19) printer is a pigment ink printer that had a rocky start. It's been less enthusiastically received by the market.
The two printers above are suitable for normal "desktop" placement, while the imagePROGRAF iPF printers are much larger and models above the iPF5100 actually use a floor stand. The 5100 is larger than the Epson 3800/3880, the other models are closer in size to the Epson counterparts as one moves up the line.
Cheers,
Dale
Wayne Fox
Workshop Member
Epson released a new driver for the 2200 printer on 11/25, I assume to fix the problem which required their installers to run under Rosetta. From what I can see, the 2200 should print under Snow Leopard (install the driver as well as the common updater, which lists 10.6 compatibility).
Both the 3800 and 3880 are stellar printers with terrific output, and both work fine under snow leopard. (there are sporadic reports of issues but guessing most of those aren't related to the OS). You may even find a good used 3800 since many users are upgrading to the 3880.
Savings in ink costs for either will be significant compared to the 2200. Even if you get that 2200 running, you may want to consider one of these. One of the best printers Epson has ever made.
Both the 3800 and 3880 are stellar printers with terrific output, and both work fine under snow leopard. (there are sporadic reports of issues but guessing most of those aren't related to the OS). You may even find a good used 3800 since many users are upgrading to the 3880.
Savings in ink costs for either will be significant compared to the 2200. Even if you get that 2200 running, you may want to consider one of these. One of the best printers Epson has ever made.
Last edited: