Best color printer from $99 to $300. Please help me! (1 Viewer)

[Rolando]

I need a printer like... NOW! I cannot choose, too many to choose from, not enough online reviews with the details or models I am stuck between.

I have come to depend on this forum for all my questions so here goes. What do you guys recommend? It's for my home office so it will be mostly black and white. I still want it to have nice color printing though for when I need it since I will want to print some scan of my DVD covers I want to replace.

Price for cartridge replacement is important as well but more concernent with outut quality. Been considering the Epson C80 for price, output and black ink effeciency but the 2880 X 720 res somehow bothers me. Why not the standard 2400 X 1200???

Please help.

 

[CarlDJr]

I know what you mean, I went through the same thing last year.
PC World has their Top Ten lists. The Epson is #2 this month:
http://pcworld.com/reviews/article/0...40,pg,2,00.asp
Good luck.

 

[Michael*K]

I won't use anything but Epson. Every printer I've ever used from them has outclassed HP and Lexmark printers by a wide margin. And for the life of me, I don't see how a Canon printer is at the top of the list. I've used two of their models in the past and they have been positively dreadful.

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Lexmark all the way.

I am currently running Lex's X73 which is a multi-function

Printer,Scanner,Copier,Fax that will do a maximum of 2400

DPI PhotoMode and the output is nothing short of professional.

Infact I am currently printing a bunch of photos for a co

worker. She had the proof's done by a professional photographer

and I scanned them in at 2400DPI and I am printing at 2400

DPI. The results are identicle to the real deal film prints.

Cartridges for the Lex aren't cheap (27-29 bucks each) but

you can buy a very good refill kit from Resource Imaging

that will refill all the colors 6-12 times and the black

cartridge even more than that, for less than $30.00.

There really isn't a "bad" printer these days, just varying

shades of "really good".

 

[brentl]

"She had the proof's done by a professional photographer

and I scanned them in at 2400DPI and I am printing at 2400

DPI."

Brett, you do know without a written OK from the photographer this is illegal? Everything is owned by the photographer.

Brent

I've done lots of wedding in the past, and if I found out that this way done without my permission ... I'd sue.

but I guess you got the OK right!!

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Brent,

FYI She BOUGHT the PROOFS.. The Photog has no legal rights

to them. I can copy the prints for her as much as I chose

to.

Now if the Proofs were his property that would be a differant

story.

 

[brentl]

The photographs are still the property of the Photographer. While she owns the photos she has, the RIGHTS to them remain with the photographer.

If she bought the negatives then I would agree.

Brent.

All photos done by a photographer are copyright that photographer and not the person with a hardcopy.

That is unless the photographer agrees that you can copy the photos without giving him due compensation.

 

[Chuck C]

I strongly recommend the HP 960c. It's incredibly fast, the software is easy to use, it's really fast, the image quality is photo-like (2400x1200), and the did I mention it blazes pages of text out at high speeds? $200 I believe.

 

[Ken Seeber]

FYI She BOUGHT the PROOFS.. The Photog has no legal rights

to them. I can copy the prints for her as much as I chose

to.

Now if the Proofs were his property that would be a differant

story.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Speaking as a former freelance photographer, what you are doing is stealing, it's illegal and a violation of the photographer's copyright.

Photo copyright works the same as music copyright: Just because you bought the CD doesn't mean you own the rights to the intellectual and artistic property contained on it. A photographer retains the copyright for the pictures, just as a musician retains the rights to the music on a CD.

Photographers don't make much money from the fee they charge for shooting the pictures. That covers equipment expense, film, batteries, processing and proof-printing and assistants. Photographers make their living from the income they receive from reprint orders.

Oh, back on topic, I'd go with Epson.

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Ken,

I guess the Photographer didn't make much money when he

charged her $475.00 for a 30" on canvas? C'mon do I look

like a complete fool?

Besides the Photog is a friend and any copies are done with

his permission.. E.O.S

 

[Ken Seeber]

I guess the Photographer didn't make much money when he charged her $475.00 for a 30" on canvas? C'mon do I look

like a complete fool?

Besides the Photog is a friend and any copies are done with

his permission.. E.O.S

I'm sure he did make money. It's his livelihood and he deserves to be paid. Whether he's overcharging or not is between your friend and the photographer.

And you didn't say he gave permission before, you said he had no legal rights to the photos. Your co-worker should double check with the photographer.

 

[Jon Teddlie]

Geez, I'm in the market for a new printer, so I thought this would be a good thread to check out and you guys are busting this guys balls because he's making a few photo copies? Is this any of your business really?

 

[Ken Seeber]

Is this any of your business really?

This forum has strictly enforced rules about bootlegging, which is essentially the unauthorized copying of copyrighted works such as films, DVDs and music. Speaking as a former full-time photographer and current part-time shooter, photographers are no different, even though the subject doesn't come up here as often as those other topics.

Brent has been a member here for awhile now and I've never known him to be any less than a stand-up guy. Pointing out that someone is violating copyright is in no way inappropriate and I hope someone would be kind enough to let me know if I'm unwittingly doing something that I shouldn't be.

And in the spirit of keeping this thread on topic, I'd like to say that I forgot to mention that as good as Epson printers are, you can go broke paying for color ink cartridges. That said, I could never go back to an HP after owning an Epson Stylus Photo printer.

 

[brentl]

Thanks Ken; and as for printers, I use an Epson 780 PhotoSytlus and it prints fantastic shots on photopaper.

It DOES use a lot of ink though, and is rather loud.

At one time they had a colour shift problem with the inks, but I believe that's been corrected now.

"Besides the Photog is a friend and any copies are done with

his permission."

Cool!

Brent L

 

[DaveF]

My previous printer conked out, putting me on the search this weekend. After looking at the stores, and ten checking magazine and online reviews, I decided these three were best suited to my needs:

Epson C80 - $150

Canon S750 - $200

HP 960c - $200

All three received positive reviews from various sources; all are affordable. I chose to go with the Epson; at $150, I think its features (decent text, good graphics, fast, quiet) will best suit me.

Good luck!

 

[Rolando]

ARRGH!!! Those are just the one I cannot pick between. Was also leaning toward the Epson but that res of 2880 X 720... why could it not be 2400 X 1200.

I am a small, small man...

 

[KyleS]

If you will be mainly using this to print Photos you may want to check out the HP 1115 Photo printer. (2400x1200) Extremely good quatlity when I use it with my digital camera. Heck when I print out pictures on photo paper at max resolution most people have no clue they are not looking at a regular photograph. Once in a frame people really cant tell the difference which is what I was looking for. Best part of this printer is that you dont have to buy special photo ink and the cartridges last a good amount of time/prints. This printer can be picked up at Costco for 199? HP also has the newer slightly faster 1215 out for around $300. PS the 1115 and 1215 also come with the double sided printer attachment so you can print on both sides of a paper without having to flip it yourself.

KyleS

FYI She BOUGHT the PROOFS.. The Photog has no legal rights

If she bought the Negatives then she would have full rights to re-print the proofs as many times as she wanted. Have her check with the photographer on how much he would charge for the negatives (basically him giving up the rights to the proofs).

 

[DaveF]

I've had the Epson C80 for a few days now, and so far I like it. I've not used it enough to really compare it to my previous printer (Epson Stylus 900). The color quality on plain paper is decent. The quality on inkjet paper is better.
I do get some light horizontal banding in regions of solid colors. I used the print-head alignment tool to minimize that problem. I need to print a photo on glossy paper to see how that works.
I'd say, if you want to spend $150 for an all-purpose printer, the C80 is the one to get. If you're willing to spend $200, then the Canon S750 might be the better choice. Though HP has an excellent reputation, it doesn't have the individual color cartridges like the Epson and Canon do (which is important to me).
Regardless, any of the printers will likely be good. It's really a matter of choosing best out of many goods

 

[Max Leung]

Two words: FAIR USE.