Keith...I go back to wet lab commercial fine art printing and studied zone system in college. Wish you could see some of the things I have. They would blow your mind. Verichrome 4x5 on Ektalure. Can't even describe the tonality. Love your vids and love modern ink jet B&W. Best b&w printer i ever had was an Epson 88 retrofitted with a 4 set MIS carbon ink set. You could get the kit for less than $200 in the mid 2000s, but no more. That thing made b&w that was next level. The new pro series Epson and Canon jets are getting closer, but the carbon still has the edge. Please keep up the vids sir. Your enthusiasm is inspiring.
well, Keith...it's kind of an inverse law (IMHO), that the more you know about a subject, the more questions that you ask of 'the customer's...them what expect "*THE ANSWER"* are oft put out a bit that you demand something substantive from *them!* It's clear to me that you have a bit more than 'the faintest idea's! (aside: strange, too, that some of those customers will then find your answers 'not fit for service'/ 'optional input') I gave a workshop on setting up a 'smartphone spectroscopy lab, and the feedback forms were rather binary..."I came for answers, not questions!" vs. "Now I know the right questions for my automation suppliers!" I find your videos (and work) first-class, and well-worth time spent with you...
Thanks - I appreciate that. My approach is not always so welcome from those selling printers - but at least I give them someone to refer awkward customers too ;-)
Keith your channel is a great resource...measuring printer quality, like most tech, is a large hurdle. However, an experts opinion (yours) may be quite doable? Letting folks know your preference on a particular application could provide a lot of value and interest. The it's depends combined with your opinion will get folks a lot further than just going to the store or Amazon and taking a guess :D
Thanks - I perhaps need to remember that these videos have a wide audience and my native Suffolk definitions of 'alright' can run the gamut in actual meaning from 'Absolutely excellent' to 'None too great' ;-)
Hi Keith, thanks for making this video and answering many of my questions. You have mentioned at the end of the video that if you were to print the seagull on the Canon m20 and the Epson p5000, the differences would be slight enough where you wouldn't see a difference going from one to another. Forgetting numbers, what type of an image would highlight the differences between these printers and what would these differences look like? You are a master printer, why wouldn't you simply go with the cheapest printer given that your skill set allows you to make any printer shine? Thanks once again for the wonderful work and all the help you provide.
Thanks. The basic test image should show differences if put next to each other under good lighting. The trickier one on the main screen would show more - it's designed to be 'awkward'. There are other test images in my collection [on the test image download page] even more harsh - but remember they are showing issues with the paper/ink/profile/printer combo. Assuming my profiles are OK, then I'd not expect to see any gross problems like banding, but look closer and colour transitions might not be so clean. The M20 has a decidedly coarser looking dot pattern, partly because of the lack of light colour inks - close up pale colour might look at bit 'rough' A more strongly coloured image pushes more colour into 'out of gamut' where how they are handled depends on a lot of factors including rendering intent. I have one of some gummy bears - which I used in my recent test of the P8500, which would look just much more impactful on the P5000 - BUT as Canon have reminded me, this is not sold as a photo printer - I'm just stretching things as a bit of a challenge ;-) With the seagull pictures at opposite ends of a room I'd likely need my strong glasses to say for sure. Standing midway in the room, I suspect the P5000 would show a bit more contrast, but the image is such that it is simply not a high contrast or obviously colourful one. A still life with dark back light and strongly coloured flowers and fruit would likely show a lot more obvious differences - add in a pack of fluorescent marker pens on the table and you're making it tricky for either printer...
Thanks ever so much for another great vid, Keith, your vid's are very educational. With that said, I really appreciate your conclution what makes a good print (or photo) and it's not about the numbers (I've learned). Maby the numbers is a way for a non-skilled photagrapher (such as me) to find an excuse for why their photos/prints don't come out to satisfaction 😁 !?
Thanks - Ah yes, the numbers... ;-) The problem is that with a previous scientific/engineering background, I'm acutely aware of how easily data is wrongly equated with information. Not a route I'm taking ;-) We see people blame poor photos on their sensor DxOMark score and use it as an excuse to buy a new one... If you see lots of number in a review of mine, you'll know I've taken up selling printers ;-)
@@KeithCooper Ay, got that. If any number appears in any of your photo printer reviews, then it's "Keith the salesman" we're dealing with 😁. Having said that, I have to admit that I look at DxO Mark quite a bit, not least when it comes to optics. I'm still of the opinion (when it comes to optical performance) that these tests have some relevance. But as it stands now, I have camera equipment and optics so it will last from here to eternity (and back again). See ya later, alligator and once more, thank you ever so much for your time and effort. Sincerely; Mr. T
Its perhaps wiser for many buyers considering a printer to ask themselves what specs " they " have, as apposed to the specs of the printer. That is to say, does the potential buyer fully understand the process and the necessary skills to maximise the capability of the printer they intend to buy? Money no object I could buy a Supercar but realistically I'll never get the best out of it because I lack the skill and competance, in fact I'd likely kill myself driving it lol.
Yes, very true I was 35 when I got my motorcycle license. It came with a serious warning from the training people, to some of the wealthier people with me, not to immediately go out and buy a super-bike unless they had hefty life insurance ;-)
In your view and your testing, which dye ink printer gives the best neutral B&W prints on glossy paper? No bronzing. Gives really deep blacks. Gives a "wet look".
Bit of a problem there... Category error: Dye based & neutral B&W But if I had to pick one... Maybe the PRO-200 see: www.northlight-images.co.uk/black-and-white-printing-with-the-pro-200/
Hello Keith. First, thanks for your reviews, One direct question: two printers, in the same price range, 1. Epson SureColor SC-P900, 2. Canon iPF PRO-1000 imagePROGRAF ?? Which one would you choose?
Thanks For myself, neither ;-) I have a P5000 here. This is one of the reasons I never make recommendations [that goes for my 20+ years of doing reviews ;-) ] Both have positives and negatives - there is no way of knowing until you make a long list of what features really matter. It's partly why my proper reviews [the long written ones] include so much detail.
Good afternoon from me here in Manila. Wonderful meander. Been a subscriber since the early days of the channel. What comes through to me. Is there a printer that ticks all the boxes. ? I think every printer that you have tested has their strengths and something that it does not do so well. Usability, speed, paper handling, i could go on .. I have been looking at the dwarflab Dwarf2 v ZWO seestar smart telescopes, we all like a new toy to play with .. Both at the same price point ... Both do the same job for a begginner market, in different ways .. one being small compact and general purpose, the other less portable and dedicated to Astro only Working through a matrix to see which is a "Better" fit for me. Great video again :) Dave B. P.S. change of subject, any chance of a Business of photography chat about Contracts at some point in the future .. Why, what and the ins and outs. As an enthusiast I dabble, and have done some shoots for local business for their social media as a favour but thinking if this continues then make it more formal. Thanks Keith.
Thanks - who's boxes to tick is the big question ;-) As someone who built my first telescope just over 50 years ago... Aperture still trumps everything ;-) That said I've no good observation site at home, so portability ought to come in to play as well... I'll add the biz stuff to the to-do list - thanks
One of your latest sentences covered 100% of the problem with a lot of photographers I know: get the best out of the photo’s you make. And in that same sentence I hear “learn to get the most out of your printer”. As some think a simple click on the print-icon should do all… I have been reading, listening, viewing all kinda stuff to replace my defect printer. And one of the better sources were your video’s, so many thanks for these. Have I decided yet? Nope, and maybe I wait till I see some printers at work and can print the same print on several brands/types with the use of the same paper (wrong I know). Too bad Photokina in Cologne(Germany) is no longer… Sometime you don’t see the trees through the woods, an old Dutch saying that reflects the reality for me now 🥲
Again Keith, thanks for your enlightening video. I really enjoy B&W printing. Can the multi ink printers now achieve the standard of B & W printing as do the OMI's eg Cones's etc?
It depends... ;-) People using such inks tend to be very -picky- discerning [sorry, did I say that out loud] so maybe not ;-) Do they reach standards I'm happy to use and show - absolutely, although a degree of fine tuning may still be needed and it's paper dependent. All my B&W stuff is referenced via: www.northlight-images.co.uk/digital-black-and-white-photography/
The seagull photo probably can be printed reasonably well with almost any printer, because the sky is cyan, which every printer has that specific ink for. It probably wouldn’t be a very good example to use if a photographer shoots images that have vivid colors in greens, oranges or violets. How would an orange poppy flower compare with all printers, or Fuji Velvia-style deep green foliage (a common color for nature landscapes)? Vivid fall colors? How about a close up, macro shot of a purple pansy that takes up all of the image? There could be vast differences between printers with these colors. I would think it would depend upon the photographer’s style. Does he/she like vivid colors or more subtle ones? And what colors are being photographed?
Yes - a lot of factors. I'll probably do a few tests like you suggest when I get to have a P9500 and P8500/6500 in the same room. I don't mind comparing two Epson high end [and current] printers in this manner - I need to have a word with the people at Dupli again, and borrow their demo room.
@@KeithCooper That would be a great comparison, especially if you have some photos with Velvia-like saturated colors of oranges, greens and/or purples. If you don't have such images, could you partner with someone who does? Or are there royalty-free images to use? I'd be interested to know the different gamut results you get in your testing too. I've always thought the gamut graphs at Luminous Landscape were meaningful. Since gamut results can be accurately measured, why not include them, especially when you would be comparing the same brand of printer and the same paper, both using pigment inks?
My not including gamut charts is generally because people tend to read far more into them than I feel is warranted ;-) I partly base this on questions I get asked about them. However I do try and make profiles [and sometimes raw measurement data] available for people to do their own testing/comparisons. I do have some strongly coloured images specifically for testing, but I've never liked Velvia and genuinely wouldn't know if they were 'good' prints I'm afraid [heresy I know - I'll get my coat ;-) ]
From what I’ve seen, gamut charts accurately do measure the colors a printer can print with a given paper. So they can be incredibly useful in helping a person choose a printer and papers for their printer. If a person doesn’t like saturated colors and mostly photographs images that don’t need more than CMY, then it’s probably a waste of time to try to find a high gamut printer and look at the gamut charts. The problem we have now is that the interest in printing on paper is so diminished that it may be harder to find gamut charts, and like I mentioned, Michael Reichmann passed, who had a heart for excellence. I could tell from the gamut charts that the color problems I was having with my Epson 7900 with reds and purples was because there was a dip in the gamut in that area. It wasn’t “meaningless” information, but practical, because I was shooting macro flowers that had those colors, and was trying to print them vividly. I was also able to choose papers that suited my images based on some of the gamut charts; though, there weren’t many. The 7900 already had the orange and green HD inks, so I was good there. Maybe because you don’t like Velvia colors you tend to not appreciate this, but many who follow your work do like saturated Velvia colors. Perhaps as mainly an architectural photographer your goal is to accurately reproduce what the building and surrounding area looks like. As mostly a nature and macro flower photographer, I’m trying to touch people’s hearts with my work, not just reproduce what the scene. Shouldn’t we have a right to be able to know how well a printer can reproduce the different colors when vivid or saturated? _________ In film days, even Kodachrome saturated colors; though, was able to make skin tones look natural. Probably most serious landscape photographers shot Velvia, which further saturated the colors, and made skin tones unnatural looking. I liked Velvia’s saturation, but not the red hue. These prints sold well too, were desirable. Once digital happened, a number of photographers were hesitant to saturate their photos even as much as Kodachrome did with film. Some are still that way. And some photographers have knee-jerk reacted to oversaturated photos, so they’re going the other way doing subtle colors instead. This is fine if it’s their style and people like it. But Velvia’s saturated colors were popular for a reason. It was the landscape standard. Photographers have different tastes with color, that many like the vibrance slider’s results instead of saturation, which I never liked much. _________ Nowadays, most images people see are moving and brightly backlit by their widescreen TV, computer or iPhone. And the color gamut is exceptional, beyond what we can print. People may spend hours watching vivid greenery while watching golf on widescreen TV now. During film days, that wasn’t happening. But hardly any printers have green ink, so we can print vivid greens. Those who want to display or sell prints are also competing with metal prints, which is dye based, having a reflective backing. The color gamut may not be good and the transitions between shades of colors, but they do project. The advantage that fine art printing on paper over metal is a wider color gamut, and an ability to saturate colors that are difficult to reproduce with metal, since they’re printed with only CMYK (Epson) or perhaps 8 inks (I think) with Sawgrass printers. But almost any modern device now will blow away prints of any kind, since they’re backlit and have a wider gamut. They’re seeing vivid colors regularly now, so Velvia-like colors, the landscape photography standard probably just looks normal to many now. _________ You mentioned in this video at minute-12 that your client “liked the strong blue.” Maybe some of your clients would like more vivid green grass colors too, which could be more realistic and vivid, perhaps on a 12-ink printer than a CMYK. So even in architectural photography, a wider gamut printer could make a print more interesting and desirable, since there is often green grass. It would probably depend upon the client’s tastes.@@KeithCooper
@@jefffenske1958 That's all good and well, but such charts are useful to those who really understand them - without explanation, they are no more than comparing cars by maximum speed. This is why I make my profiling data available - it's there for people to use if they understand how and why. I won't be including additional data in any video reviews though - I may add some extra info in written ones, where I can properly give context and refine the text to mean what I want it to mean - my videos contain far too much ambiguity, and cannot be refined/edited/expanded. That's before I even have to think about how people in other countries may interpret some of my English colloquialisms ;-) As to the colours - yes, the client liked it, but a minuscule amount of my architectural work ends up printed at any size :-( I tend to worry more about how what's in gamut displays than the boundaries. That said, I'll still take 12 colours if given the chance - I do have bright colourful images - I still dislike Velvia - in fact, the more I look at film the more I'm glad I don't have to have anything to do with the stuff any more ;-)
Your last comments... It matters not how good the printer, if the photographer prints "less than wonderful images" : no printer makes good photography!
Hey Keith is there a printer that can print 11x15 200gsm photo paper at a relatively fast speed? Not something that requires manual loading every 20 prints. And won’t break the bank for 50% coverage on 500 prints per month in ink costs?
@@KeithCooper oh ok 16x12 should be good too thank you. Forgot to mention I'll have to print on both sides. Is there another model that allows for duplexing or can is there a way to print on both side on the P5300?
@@thecontenverse2136 That's a killer - nothing duplexes double sided puts real restrictions on media too Nope, that's a show stopper for anything I've looked at...
Hello. Thank you for the effort you put into creating these videos. I have a question. Does anyone look at the colour fastness of these printers? Particularly for the lower end $$ wise? I have spent a few hundred dollars on an epson eco tank. The printed black ink turns bright red within 12 months (great if you want demon eye on your images...) . This happens on any and all media. Huge waste of money. The initial quality of print is irrelevant in this instance. I have since been told that any of the inkjets, unless using 'photo ink' will not produce prints that will last for any length of time.
This varies a lot, especially with cheaper printers - that blanket dismissal of them is somewhat erroneous I'm minded to note. It's not something I can easily test though, since I test relatively few printers at the 'cheap end' - which printer is it?
@@KeithCooper thank you for the response. epson et 2500. Eco tank. Relatively cheap. But still cost me about $450-500. I have no idea if any other printer will have the same problem no regardless of how much I pay for it.
Ah - that is a 4 ink printer with pigment black IIRC? See the discussions in my written 2850 review about media choices and settings www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-2850-printer-review/
something you said just kind of triggered some electrochemical activity just behind my eyes...it seems to me, simple folk that I am, that gamut and profiling can be easily overdone, if one's actual workflow generates images that have lower dynamic range, all the time, or tend to subjects that have some limited, or -stretched- dynamic range in special conditions...someone shooting primarily wheat fields, or the Savannah, has very different needs for their colour reproduction, as compared to someone shooting black sand beaches, with surf, and jungle backgrounds...as one finds in my primary field, it's always an "end-to-end" system view that optimizes results, then, maybe, add in a "headroom factor" to allow for atypical jobs, so as not leave the user 'cut off at the pass'...but, just my pontificating in the face of vast experience ...
Yes - given the chance, I'll go for the 'better' printer. It can mean a few less factors to worry about if an image is a bit more challenging. I'll have a look at exploring this a bit more...
As an amateur I do want the largest possible fine prints of Landscapes, but without having a too huge printer, so if I compare 17"/A2 printers like the Epson P900 and the Canon PRO-1000, then the Epson is the most compact and light weight, I have seen some reviews of those and none is better than the other, so I will choose the compact and light Epson P900. But what about running cost for prints with ink ?
I'm afraid not - I wish I could. So much is about the physical 'looking at' prints and the processes - also I'm not comfortable in doing this sort of stuff on-line - much of it can be reactive and un-planned. I'll admit have difficulties in seeing people in video as 'real'. I am always happy to answer questions and suggest stuff by email though!
@@KeithCooper I use photos I’ve taken or images I’ve created on photoshop to draw from. So, I would print out the image I wanted to copy, and then trace over it to get my proportions correct. Colour from the photos can be used to help me get the correct colour mix in paintings but I do a lot of black ink drawings, so when I say a reference photo, it’s basically the image I plan to draw and copy from onto fresh paper. Hope that makes some sense!
Ah - to get accurate printing, you need a proper colour managed workflow, including calibration of the monitor, and printing with the right ICC profiles. A good printer for what you want is no different to a good printer for photos. See for example my main [written] reviews of the PRO200 and et-8550 www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/ www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-200-printer-review/ BTW - these have links to all my related videos, but the real detail is always in the written review ;-)
@@matthewbrown9844 Then get a good laser printer. Honestly there is no real need for a photo printer when what you want is the correct proportions. You'll work on your colors anyway while painting so a colored print is useless. And a photo printer is vastly overkill for that, you will waste ton of money on the printer, and on the ink, for nothing.
Hi Keith can you help me with this problem when Printing a image how can I zoom into the image and make it stay zoomed inn and then print the image at that setting in Lightroom classic can you help I have Tried all manner of ways can you help please
@@KeithCooper just one question what do you use I have only just started to use photoshop and lightroom for printing and light adjustments But I will not use it for Editing I hate people adjusting photographs to make them look better than they are I always take my photos in raw never jpeg I have seen some of the work you have done it’s Pretty impressive i Would think you started taking photos early age as well the same as me I started at eight years old I was Always out in the middle of the dark nights doing long exposures it fascinated me
@@marcusjames1221 I use mostly photoshop/bridge with a few specialist plugins As to editing - I'm a commercial photographer, so I'd be in difficulty if I didn't ;-) Editing is an integral part of producing prints which match my objectives for the print - I may want a 'realistic' representation, but all raw images need some editing [even if you just call it processing ;-) ] It's the level of editing which is a personal preference, not whether it's needed
@@KeithCooper I think you can print, web, and video. Adobe Bridge keeps native Adobe files (such as PSD and PDF) and non‑Adobe files available for easy access is that what you use it’s a really good software
Hi, I would like to print fish that are 10 cm long, the fish are quite small and have small details on them such as eyes, scales, and I would like to print these fish on a holographic a4 sticker, my only experience with the printer is in written form, I have never I was making a picture, I would spend 300 euros for a printer, do you have a printer to recommend that is not expensive and with which all the details of the fish can be seen, I would be grateful for your recommendation
Sorry that's a media type I've never used, so I've no idea how it would work in any of the printers I've tested - 'stickers' are notoriously difficult media to work with for inkjet printers, often with ink not drying or rubbing off. You need to find someone using the same media...
You could go the other way and tell us which printers to avoid and for what reasons. For example, if one is only going to print once every so often; ink waste due to cleaning cycles; how good the company is at handling user problems etc.
I possibly could If I had reliable data to back up such assertions... I don't, which means that's a direction I'll not take. It's different saying, for example, that the ET-18100 is great for glossy, but useless for art paper, since I've tested it. I have no idea what customer service is like, so that's an area I simply will not touch
A quick lookat BH for the Epson SureColor P20000, as I begin to enjoy this presentation, shows 2 reviews, both panning it as unreliable and extremely wasteful of ink, cleaning it's heads between each print even. Perhaps you want to counter that with a glowing review of the machine.
Ah, I never post on-line reviews of products at sellers... Not enough space in the text box ;-) Here's my 2017 review: www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p20000-printer-review/ As you would expect, there are a lot of caveats to my use of the word 'best' :-)
thank you so much for this video! i love watching them all. i am having a real hard time and i’m hoping you can help me. i’m a collage artist and i’ll use my new et-8550 in two ways. One for selling affordable prints of my more expensive original collages. The second use is to print images that i can add to my collages. For example, if i see a clipping of something in a magazine, but it’s small, i’ll scan it, and reprint it larger to be used in my piece (glueing it, etc). i’m struggling to find a suitable paper for this. i used to use plain paper, but by this point i’ve grown as an artist and am looking to elevate my materials (and print quality). If you don’t give out recommendations per say, maybe you can help me find where to find paper i can test? i have only been able to find epson or hp “photo paper” which isn’t what i’m looking for. (and plain paper prints photos terrible looking). a perfect world, it would be more similar to magazine paper. can an ET-8550 dye print on magazine paper? i’m so sorry for the long comment but i have spent months in this and i have no clue where to start finding support for this! Thank you so much. i adore your work.
Thanks - glad it was of interest. Have a look at my main [written] 8550 review where I discuss papers I tested. www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/ Where are you though - I mainly know UK sources of papers. Something like Epson enhanced matte might do what you want - Magazine paper is likely to be poor unless you get a 'proofing paper' meant for inkjet
@@KeithCooper i’ll head to your article right away. And share a coffee, on me when i get to your website 💝 i’m located in the united states. i’m looking for a paper that is luster, but very thin (ease of cutting for collage)
Try Red River paper - they sent me several packs a while ago just to try out. Very helpful people, give them a ring and tell them what you want to do - they may have just the paper?
In a previous video, I think you said the Epson ET-18100 EcoTank printer is the best dye ink printer for printing glossy photos on luster type paper, which I was going to ask you about, because the Canon Pro-200 should have a larger gamut, and featured some new state-of-the-art inks. So I was wondering why you chose the Epson 6-ink printer over the Canon 8-ink. Is this the answer? Here, it sounds like you are specifically saying the 18100 is the best EcoTank printer for glossy prints on luster paper, not the best 13” dye based ink printer. So you’re not saying the Epson 18100 prints better prints than the Canon Pro-200 on luster type paper? You’re just saying the Epson 18100 is the best EcoTank printer for doing such? ___________ You then say the Canon Pro-200 has the best color gamut of any 13-inch printer and in “how prints look on various papers,” because of its 8 inks. So here, you seem to be saying that the Canon Pro-200 would have best results on various papers, which would include luster? Does the Epson 18100 have a better result than the Canon Pro-200 in any way regarding the print quality, desireablity and pop, or were you just comparing the 18100 to Epson’s other EcoTank printers? Thanks.
Ah - Take careful note of my caveats for 'best' in this very video ;-) Yes,it is all in the fine print... The ET-18100 is the best **ink tank** dye printer - it works very well on Lustre gloss paper - poorly on thicker/art media. The PRO-200 is the best dye printer in terms of gamut and range of paper handled. Depending on your list of criteria for 'best' one or the other takes it - certainly the ink tank printer will be cheaper to run and that matter to many. If you didn't care so much about ink costs you'd pick the 200 - aimed at different markets. I'm not in anyway saying that one is 'best' without being most specific as to why and in what circumstances. Sorry if it came across otherwise - this is one reason I still say to read my written reviews, as opposed to my off the cuff 'unscripted' videos ;-)
“P5000 needs regular use…” What happens if it doesn’t get it? What would be “not quite regular enough” use? I once saw a comment that one blocked nozzle on an Epson ruins the printer until it gets repaired, so don’t buy them for home use, and I want to check its veracity. Your words, that I am quoting, hint that there is a real issue here. Thoughts?
Less use increases the chances of printer problems.. for the P5000 I have a reminder set to turn on the printer every week, just in case I've not printed. It's about levels of reliability - there is no definite failure induced by leaving one for a month. However, there is a big difference between commercial printers and smaller consumer ones - they are designed for home [intermittent] use and are much more forgiving. The statement is incomplete and as such unduly alarmist IMHO - was it from someone who is a fan of [or sells] another brand of printer? ';-) Modern printers are generally more reliable in this respect as well.
I've waffled on tossing this idea out as it has big pro's and con's for it - but, brain storming so I'll just throw it up: From your experience just declare some printer(s) as your STANDARD (maybe one standard for dye base, one for pigment - more than that and I can see this getting out of hand quickly). Then you can say, besides the usual stuff, that printer in question handles matt papers better the standard (go out on a limb and say one to five stars of deviation), worse or the same with gloss; easier, worse, no better just different etc. for usability. So instead of hard numbers you have this subjective position compared to a known quantity. We all have biases and with many reviews with this system people should get an feel for your biases (or lack there of) so if their opinion on how mat or gloss prints turn out (just to grab one criteria to consider) deviates from yours, since you are comparing printers to the same standard printer they will know how much to weigh your thoughts on the reviewed printer. One thing I had in mind; just how much printers improve over the years but I'm thinking we're at a plateau right now so it could be decades before we see any meaningful improvements there. I'm pretty sure choosing a standard printer would be fairly easy. Just pick one you know real well. Doesn't even have to be the best, just draw a line in the sand and we go from there. I don't really know what to do with the numbers but if a printer is better or worse than the standard printing black & white prints - then I would find information like that useful.
A quite reasonable suggestion - thanks for taking the time. I suspect it could be done, but likely not by myself - maybe if someone paid me [well] to do it, but I think it would take many months of work, a lot of printers and a lot of paper/ink. Lines in the sand vanish twice a day where I grew up... ;-) However, I'm afraid that my doing this, runs into deeper personal issues for me. I have some difficulties with the whole concept of comparative reviews, and have a 20 year review policy which says Northlight doesn't do them, or award any sort of score in any category. This was from 2016, and I've not changed my mind ;-) www.northlight-images.co.uk/we-never-recommend-best-products/ I did discuss printing reviews with DPReview some time ago, but they are into percentages and gold stars, so no go there - I think the bigger issue was their funding ;-)
But the Epson clogs like a beach, and the paper ,anagement is aweful compared to the canon pro 1000. Also the pro 1000 has cheaper ink than the pro 300. Thats a difference that can help to know. Also you and many others use the classic example of the novice with a piece of equipment, NEVER the example of a master with such equipment. That's different, tell me what 2 masters would choose and why. That's the best info. Put 2 masters, one with cheap equipment and one with expensive equipment and show the results. Thats the good stuff.
Yes - my more 'expert' opinions appear in the main [written] reviews which are longer, more detailed and updated over time (including the PRO-1000 from when it first came out). They also go back further than the videos, which are generally intended as supplements to the written stuff. There are many videos covering high end printers and more advanced use - this particular video is aimed people who would ask the 'which is the best' printer. Personally I'd still take a P20000 - the article also shows why this might not be a particularly helpful answer to someone asking me 'which printer is best' ;-) www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p20000-printer-review/
Keith...I go back to wet lab commercial fine art printing and studied zone system in college. Wish you could see some of the things I have. They would blow your mind. Verichrome 4x5 on Ektalure. Can't even describe the tonality. Love your vids and love modern ink jet B&W. Best b&w printer i ever had was an Epson 88 retrofitted with a 4 set MIS carbon ink set. You could get the kit for less than $200 in the mid 2000s, but no more. That thing made b&w that was next level. The new pro series Epson and Canon jets are getting closer, but the carbon still has the edge. Please keep up the vids sir. Your enthusiasm is inspiring.
Thanks - it will come as no surprise that the consistent feedback I give to both Canon and Epson when asked, is for better B&W ;-)
Thank you I'm still aiming for a Epson SC-P900 in a few years time after I have updated my computer and got a 19mmF4 PC and a 400mmF2.8 lens.
In a few years time, it could be another printer ;-)
well, Keith...it's kind of an inverse law (IMHO), that the more you know about a subject, the more questions that you ask of 'the customer's...them what expect "*THE ANSWER"* are oft put out a bit that you demand something substantive from *them!*
It's clear to me that you have a bit more than 'the faintest idea's! (aside: strange, too, that some of those customers will then find your answers 'not fit for service'/ 'optional input')
I gave a workshop on setting up a 'smartphone spectroscopy lab, and the feedback forms were rather binary..."I came for answers, not questions!" vs. "Now I know the right questions for my automation suppliers!"
I find your videos (and work) first-class, and well-worth time spent with you...
Thanks - I appreciate that.
My approach is not always so welcome from those selling printers - but at least I give them someone to refer awkward customers too ;-)
I always enjoy your videos. Thanks for the discussion.
Glad you like them! - thanks
Keith your channel is a great resource...measuring printer quality, like most tech, is a large hurdle. However, an experts opinion (yours) may be quite doable? Letting folks know your preference on a particular application could provide a lot of value and interest. The it's depends combined with your opinion will get folks a lot further than just going to the store or Amazon and taking a guess :D
Thanks - I perhaps need to remember that these videos have a wide audience and my native Suffolk definitions of 'alright' can run the gamut in actual meaning from 'Absolutely excellent' to 'None too great' ;-)
Another good video Keith.
Thanks
Hi Keith, thanks for making this video and answering many of my questions.
You have mentioned at the end of the video that if you were to print the seagull on the Canon m20 and the Epson p5000, the differences would be slight enough where you wouldn't see a difference going from one to another. Forgetting numbers, what type of an image would highlight the differences between these printers and what would these differences look like? You are a master printer, why wouldn't you simply go with the cheapest printer given that your skill set allows you to make any printer shine?
Thanks once again for the wonderful work and all the help you provide.
Thanks. The basic test image should show differences if put next to each other under good lighting.
The trickier one on the main screen would show more - it's designed to be 'awkward'. There are other test images in my collection [on the test image download page] even more harsh - but remember they are showing issues with the paper/ink/profile/printer combo.
Assuming my profiles are OK, then I'd not expect to see any gross problems like banding, but look closer and colour transitions might not be so clean. The M20 has a decidedly coarser looking dot pattern, partly because of the lack of light colour inks - close up pale colour might look at bit 'rough'
A more strongly coloured image pushes more colour into 'out of gamut' where how they are handled depends on a lot of factors including rendering intent. I have one of some gummy bears - which I used in my recent test of the P8500, which would look just much more impactful on the P5000 - BUT as Canon have reminded me, this is not sold as a photo printer - I'm just stretching things as a bit of a challenge ;-)
With the seagull pictures at opposite ends of a room I'd likely need my strong glasses to say for sure. Standing midway in the room, I suspect the P5000 would show a bit more contrast, but the image is such that it is simply not a high contrast or obviously colourful one. A still life with dark back light and strongly coloured flowers and fruit would likely show a lot more obvious differences - add in a pack of fluorescent marker pens on the table and you're making it tricky for either printer...
@@KeithCooper Thank you. Those are the aspects I've been looking for
Thanks for asking!
Thanks ever so much for another great vid, Keith, your vid's are very educational. With that said, I really appreciate your conclution what makes a good print (or photo) and it's not about the numbers (I've learned). Maby the numbers is a way for a non-skilled photagrapher (such as me) to find an excuse for why their photos/prints don't come out to satisfaction 😁 !?
Thanks - Ah yes, the numbers... ;-)
The problem is that with a previous scientific/engineering background, I'm acutely aware of how easily data is wrongly equated with information. Not a route I'm taking ;-)
We see people blame poor photos on their sensor DxOMark score and use it as an excuse to buy a new one... If you see lots of number in a review of mine, you'll know I've taken up selling printers ;-)
@@KeithCooper Ay, got that. If any number appears in any of your photo printer reviews, then it's "Keith the salesman" we're dealing with 😁. Having said that, I have to admit that I look at DxO Mark quite a bit, not least when it comes to optics. I'm still of the opinion (when it comes to optical performance) that these tests have some relevance. But as it stands now, I have camera equipment and optics so it will last from here to eternity (and back again).
See ya later, alligator and once more, thank you ever so much for your time and effort.
Sincerely;
Mr. T
lots of fun. thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Its perhaps wiser for many buyers considering a printer to ask themselves what specs " they " have, as apposed to the specs of the printer. That is to say, does the potential buyer fully understand the process and the necessary skills to maximise the capability of the printer they intend to buy? Money no object I could buy a Supercar but realistically I'll never get the best out of it because I lack the skill and competance, in fact I'd likely kill myself driving it lol.
Yes, very true
I was 35 when I got my motorcycle license. It came with a serious warning from the training people, to some of the wealthier people with me, not to immediately go out and buy a super-bike unless they had hefty life insurance ;-)
In your view and your testing, which dye ink printer gives the best neutral B&W prints on glossy paper? No bronzing. Gives really deep blacks. Gives a "wet look".
Bit of a problem there... Category error: Dye based & neutral B&W
But if I had to pick one... Maybe the PRO-200 see:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/black-and-white-printing-with-the-pro-200/
Aah, learnt something new. Thanks for that.
I read your B&W Pro 200 article. Also, Greyscale removing colour tints article. Valuable knowledge.
Yes, it's all very dependent on media choices and where you're planning to look at the prints.
A statistician friend told me that we tend to measure what we can measure rather than what is meaningful.
Excellent comment...
Hello Keith. First, thanks for your reviews, One direct question: two printers, in the same price range, 1. Epson SureColor SC-P900, 2. Canon iPF PRO-1000 imagePROGRAF ?? Which one would you choose?
Thanks
For myself, neither ;-) I have a P5000 here.
This is one of the reasons I never make recommendations [that goes for my 20+ years of doing reviews ;-) ] Both have positives and negatives - there is no way of knowing until you make a long list of what features really matter. It's partly why my proper reviews [the long written ones] include so much detail.
Good afternoon from me here in Manila.
Wonderful meander. Been a subscriber since the early days of the channel.
What comes through to me.
Is there a printer that ticks all the boxes. ?
I think every printer that you have tested has their strengths and something that it does not do so well. Usability, speed, paper handling, i could go on ..
I have been looking at the dwarflab Dwarf2 v ZWO seestar smart telescopes, we all like a new toy to play with ..
Both at the same price point ...
Both do the same job for a begginner market, in different ways .. one being small compact and general purpose, the other less portable and dedicated to Astro only Working through a matrix to see which is a "Better" fit for me.
Great video again :)
Dave B.
P.S. change of subject, any chance of a Business of photography chat about Contracts at some point in the future ..
Why, what and the ins and outs.
As an enthusiast I dabble, and have done some shoots for local business for their social media as a favour but thinking if this continues then make it more formal.
Thanks Keith.
Thanks - who's boxes to tick is the big question ;-)
As someone who built my first telescope just over 50 years ago... Aperture still trumps everything ;-) That said I've no good observation site at home, so portability ought to come in to play as well...
I'll add the biz stuff to the to-do list - thanks
One of your latest sentences covered 100% of the problem with a lot of photographers I know: get the best out of the photo’s you make.
And in that same sentence I hear “learn to get the most out of your printer”. As some think a simple click on the print-icon should do all…
I have been reading, listening, viewing all kinda stuff to replace my defect printer. And one of the better sources were your video’s, so many thanks for these.
Have I decided yet? Nope, and maybe I wait till I see some printers at work and can print the same print on several brands/types with the use of the same paper (wrong I know). Too bad Photokina in Cologne(Germany) is no longer…
Sometime you don’t see the trees through the woods, an old Dutch saying that reflects the reality for me now 🥲
Thanks - glad it's been of help
If you've any specific questions feel free to email me - this video was based on someone asking for more info...
Again Keith, thanks for your enlightening video. I really enjoy B&W printing. Can the multi ink printers now achieve the standard of B & W printing as do the OMI's eg Cones's etc?
It depends... ;-)
People using such inks tend to be very -picky- discerning [sorry, did I say that out loud] so maybe not ;-)
Do they reach standards I'm happy to use and show - absolutely, although a degree of fine tuning may still be needed and it's paper dependent.
All my B&W stuff is referenced via:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/digital-black-and-white-photography/
The seagull photo probably can be printed reasonably well with almost any printer, because the sky is cyan, which every printer has that specific ink for. It probably wouldn’t be a very good example to use if a photographer shoots images that have vivid colors in greens, oranges or violets. How would an orange poppy flower compare with all printers, or Fuji Velvia-style deep green foliage (a common color for nature landscapes)? Vivid fall colors? How about a close up, macro shot of a purple pansy that takes up all of the image?
There could be vast differences between printers with these colors.
I would think it would depend upon the photographer’s style. Does he/she like vivid colors or more subtle ones?
And what colors are being photographed?
Yes - a lot of factors.
I'll probably do a few tests like you suggest when I get to have a P9500 and P8500/6500 in the same room. I don't mind comparing two Epson high end [and current] printers in this manner - I need to have a word with the people at Dupli again, and borrow their demo room.
@@KeithCooper That would be a great comparison, especially if you have some photos with Velvia-like saturated colors of oranges, greens and/or purples. If you don't have such images, could you partner with someone who does? Or are there royalty-free images to use?
I'd be interested to know the different gamut results you get in your testing too.
I've always thought the gamut graphs at Luminous Landscape were meaningful. Since gamut results can be accurately measured, why not include them, especially when you would be comparing the same brand of printer and the same paper, both using pigment inks?
My not including gamut charts is generally because people tend to read far more into them than I feel is warranted ;-) I partly base this on questions I get asked about them.
However I do try and make profiles [and sometimes raw measurement data] available for people to do their own testing/comparisons.
I do have some strongly coloured images specifically for testing, but I've never liked Velvia and genuinely wouldn't know if they were 'good' prints I'm afraid [heresy I know - I'll get my coat ;-) ]
From what I’ve seen, gamut charts accurately do measure the colors a printer can print with a given paper. So they can be incredibly useful in helping a person choose a printer and papers for their printer. If a person doesn’t like saturated colors and mostly photographs images that don’t need more than CMY, then it’s probably a waste of time to try to find a high gamut printer and look at the gamut charts.
The problem we have now is that the interest in printing on paper is so diminished that it may be harder to find gamut charts, and like I mentioned, Michael Reichmann passed, who had a heart for excellence.
I could tell from the gamut charts that the color problems I was having with my Epson 7900 with reds and purples was because there was a dip in the gamut in that area. It wasn’t “meaningless” information, but practical, because I was shooting macro flowers that had those colors, and was trying to print them vividly.
I was also able to choose papers that suited my images based on some of the gamut charts; though, there weren’t many.
The 7900 already had the orange and green HD inks, so I was good there.
Maybe because you don’t like Velvia colors you tend to not appreciate this, but many who follow your work do like saturated Velvia colors.
Perhaps as mainly an architectural photographer your goal is to accurately reproduce what the building and surrounding area looks like.
As mostly a nature and macro flower photographer, I’m trying to touch people’s hearts with my work, not just reproduce what the scene.
Shouldn’t we have a right to be able to know how well a printer can reproduce the different colors when vivid or saturated?
_________
In film days, even Kodachrome saturated colors; though, was able to make skin tones look natural.
Probably most serious landscape photographers shot Velvia, which further saturated the colors, and made skin tones unnatural looking. I liked Velvia’s saturation, but not the red hue.
These prints sold well too, were desirable.
Once digital happened, a number of photographers were hesitant to saturate their photos even as much as Kodachrome did with film. Some are still that way.
And some photographers have knee-jerk reacted to oversaturated photos, so they’re going the other way doing subtle colors instead. This is fine if it’s their style and people like it. But Velvia’s saturated colors were popular for a reason. It was the landscape standard.
Photographers have different tastes with color, that many like the vibrance slider’s results instead of saturation, which I never liked much.
_________
Nowadays, most images people see are moving and brightly backlit by their widescreen TV, computer or iPhone. And the color gamut is exceptional, beyond what we can print.
People may spend hours watching vivid greenery while watching golf on widescreen TV now. During film days, that wasn’t happening.
But hardly any printers have green ink, so we can print vivid greens.
Those who want to display or sell prints are also competing with metal prints, which is dye based, having a reflective backing. The color gamut may not be good and the transitions between shades of colors, but they do project.
The advantage that fine art printing on paper over metal is a wider color gamut, and an ability to saturate colors that are difficult to reproduce with metal, since they’re printed with only CMYK (Epson) or perhaps 8 inks (I think) with Sawgrass printers.
But almost any modern device now will blow away prints of any kind, since they’re backlit and have a wider gamut.
They’re seeing vivid colors regularly now, so Velvia-like colors, the landscape photography standard probably just looks normal to many now.
_________
You mentioned in this video at minute-12 that your client “liked the strong blue.” Maybe some of your clients would like more vivid green grass colors too, which could be more realistic and vivid, perhaps on a 12-ink printer than a CMYK.
So even in architectural photography, a wider gamut printer could make a print more interesting and desirable, since there is often green grass. It would probably depend upon the client’s tastes.@@KeithCooper
@@jefffenske1958 That's all good and well, but such charts are useful to those who really understand them - without explanation, they are no more than comparing cars by maximum speed. This is why I make my profiling data available - it's there for people to use if they understand how and why.
I won't be including additional data in any video reviews though - I may add some extra info in written ones, where I can properly give context and refine the text to mean what I want it to mean - my videos contain far too much ambiguity, and cannot be refined/edited/expanded. That's before I even have to think about how people in other countries may interpret some of my English colloquialisms ;-)
As to the colours - yes, the client liked it, but a minuscule amount of my architectural work ends up printed at any size :-( I tend to worry more about how what's in gamut displays than the boundaries.
That said, I'll still take 12 colours if given the chance - I do have bright colourful images - I still dislike Velvia - in fact, the more I look at film the more I'm glad I don't have to have anything to do with the stuff any more ;-)
Your last comments... It matters not how good the printer, if the photographer prints "less than wonderful images" : no printer makes good photography!
Indeed - that's the job of a good lens and expensive camera ;-) :-)
Hey Keith is there a printer that can print 11x15 200gsm photo paper at a relatively fast speed? Not something that requires manual loading every 20 prints. And won’t break the bank for 50% coverage on 500 prints per month in ink costs?
P5300? Roll paper with a cutter
16x12 is easy on 16 inch roll paper.
I've never seen "11x15" sheet paper, but you could load it in the cassette
@@KeithCooper oh ok 16x12 should be good too thank you. Forgot to mention I'll have to print on both sides. Is there another model that allows for duplexing or can is there a way to print on both side on the P5300?
@@thecontenverse2136 That's a killer - nothing duplexes
double sided puts real restrictions on media too
Nope, that's a show stopper for anything I've looked at...
Hello. Thank you for the effort you put into creating these videos. I have a question. Does anyone look at the colour fastness of these printers? Particularly for the lower end $$ wise? I have spent a few hundred dollars on an epson eco tank. The printed black ink turns bright red within 12 months (great if you want demon eye on your images...) . This happens on any and all media. Huge waste of money. The initial quality of print is irrelevant in this instance.
I have since been told that any of the inkjets, unless using 'photo ink' will not produce prints that will last for any length of time.
This varies a lot, especially with cheaper printers - that blanket dismissal of them is somewhat erroneous I'm minded to note.
It's not something I can easily test though, since I test relatively few printers at the 'cheap end' - which printer is it?
@@KeithCooper thank you for the response. epson et 2500. Eco tank. Relatively cheap. But still cost me about $450-500. I have no idea if any other printer will have the same problem no regardless of how much I pay for it.
Ah - that is a 4 ink printer with pigment black IIRC?
See the discussions in my written 2850 review about media choices and settings
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-2850-printer-review/
@@KeithCooper thanks!
something you said just kind of triggered some electrochemical activity just behind my eyes...it seems to me, simple folk that I am, that gamut and profiling can be easily overdone, if one's actual workflow generates images that have lower dynamic range, all the time, or tend to subjects that have some limited, or -stretched- dynamic range in special conditions...someone shooting primarily wheat fields, or the Savannah, has very different needs for their colour reproduction, as compared to someone shooting black sand beaches, with surf, and jungle backgrounds...as one finds in my primary field, it's always an "end-to-end" system view that optimizes results, then, maybe, add in a "headroom factor" to allow for atypical jobs, so as not leave the user 'cut off at the pass'...but, just my pontificating in the face of vast experience ...
Yes - given the chance, I'll go for the 'better' printer. It can mean a few less factors to worry about if an image is a bit more challenging.
I'll have a look at exploring this a bit more...
Hello!
Can you tell me how many gsm.for paper ??
gsm is a physical characteristic of a paper - nothing to do with 'quality'
As an amateur I do want the largest possible fine prints of Landscapes, but without having a too huge printer, so if I compare 17"/A2 printers like the Epson P900 and the Canon PRO-1000, then the Epson is the most compact and light weight, I have seen some reviews of those and none is better than the other, so I will choose the compact and light Epson P900. But what about running cost for prints with ink ?
Not an area I've any reliable info for, but see here
www.redrivercatalog.com/rr/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html
@@KeithCooper Thank you, great page, not only are the Epson P900 more compact than the Canon PRO-1000 it is also cheaper with running costs.
What printer can print canvas size Around 40cmx60cm?
That's ~16"x24" so any A2 and above [17"] printer I've tested...
@@KeithCooper thanks dude
Do you do one to one online? For non UK .
I'm afraid not - I wish I could.
So much is about the physical 'looking at' prints and the processes - also I'm not comfortable in doing this sort of stuff on-line - much of it can be reactive and un-planned. I'll admit have difficulties in seeing people in video as 'real'.
I am always happy to answer questions and suggest stuff by email though!
@@KeithCooper I understand. I guess I will do the email route. I so appreciate your expertise and passion. Thanks for the help.
Hi Keith. Do you have any advice on printers for reference photos for artists, not for selling prints but to print your own reference photos?
Can you be more specific about what's meant by a 'reference photo'? - this is not a term I'm familiar with?
@@KeithCooper I use photos I’ve taken or images I’ve created on photoshop to draw from. So, I would print out the image I wanted to copy, and then trace over it to get my proportions correct. Colour from the photos can be used to help me get the correct colour mix in paintings but I do a lot of black ink drawings, so when I say a reference photo, it’s basically the image I plan to draw and copy from onto fresh paper. Hope that makes some sense!
Ah - to get accurate printing, you need a proper colour managed workflow, including calibration of the monitor, and printing with the right ICC profiles.
A good printer for what you want is no different to a good printer for photos.
See for example my main [written] reviews of the PRO200 and et-8550
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-200-printer-review/
BTW - these have links to all my related videos, but the real detail is always in the written review ;-)
@@matthewbrown9844 Then get a good laser printer. Honestly there is no real need for a photo printer when what you want is the correct proportions. You'll work on your colors anyway while painting so a colored print is useless. And a photo printer is vastly overkill for that, you will waste ton of money on the printer, and on the ink, for nothing.
Hi Keith can you help me with this problem when Printing a image how can I zoom into the image and make it stay zoomed inn
and then print the image at that setting in Lightroom classic can you help I have Tried all manner of ways can you help please
Ah - Lightroom... Sorry I genuinely have no idea, I never use it [Photoshop only here, for 20+ years]
I'd ask on the post-processing forum at DPReview
@@KeithCooper just one question what do you use I have only just started to use photoshop and lightroom for printing and light adjustments But I will not use it for Editing I hate people adjusting photographs to make them look better than they are I always take my photos in raw never jpeg I have seen some of the work you have done it’s Pretty impressive i Would think you started taking photos early age as well the same as me I started at eight years old I was Always out in the middle of the dark nights doing long exposures it fascinated me
@@marcusjames1221 I use mostly photoshop/bridge with a few specialist plugins
As to editing - I'm a commercial photographer, so I'd be in difficulty if I didn't ;-)
Editing is an integral part of producing prints which match my objectives for the print - I may want a 'realistic' representation, but all raw images need some editing [even if you just call it processing ;-) ]
It's the level of editing which is a personal preference, not whether it's needed
@@KeithCooper I think you can print, web, and video. Adobe Bridge keeps native Adobe files (such as PSD and PDF) and non‑Adobe files available for easy access is that what you use it’s a really good software
Hi, I would like to print fish that are 10 cm long, the fish are quite small and have small details on them such as eyes, scales, and I would like to print these fish on a holographic a4 sticker, my only experience with the printer is in written form, I have never I was making a picture, I would spend 300 euros for a printer, do you have a printer to recommend that is not expensive and with which all the details of the fish can be seen, I would be grateful for your recommendation
Sorry that's a media type I've never used, so I've no idea how it would work in any of the printers I've tested - 'stickers' are notoriously difficult media to work with for inkjet printers, often with ink not drying or rubbing off.
You need to find someone using the same media...
@@KeithCooper thank you ,yes i need inkjet printer that is only what know
You could go the other way and tell us which printers to avoid and for what reasons. For example, if one is only going to print once every so often; ink waste due to cleaning cycles; how good the company is at handling user problems etc.
I possibly could If I had reliable data to back up such assertions...
I don't, which means that's a direction I'll not take.
It's different saying, for example, that the ET-18100 is great for glossy, but useless for art paper, since I've tested it.
I have no idea what customer service is like, so that's an area I simply will not touch
A quick lookat BH for the Epson SureColor P20000, as I begin to enjoy this presentation, shows 2 reviews, both panning it as unreliable and extremely wasteful of ink, cleaning it's heads between each print even. Perhaps you want to counter that with a glowing review of the machine.
Ah, I never post on-line reviews of products at sellers... Not enough space in the text box ;-)
Here's my 2017 review:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p20000-printer-review/
As you would expect, there are a lot of caveats to my use of the word 'best' :-)
thank you so much for this video! i love watching them all. i am having a real hard time and i’m hoping you can help me. i’m a collage artist and i’ll use my new et-8550 in two ways. One for selling affordable prints of my more expensive original collages. The second use is to print images that i can add to my collages. For example, if i see a clipping of something in a magazine, but it’s small, i’ll scan it, and reprint it larger to be used in my piece (glueing it, etc).
i’m struggling to find a suitable paper for this. i used to use plain paper, but by this point i’ve grown as an artist and am looking to elevate my materials (and print quality). If you don’t give out recommendations per say, maybe you can help me find where to find paper i can test? i have only been able to find epson or hp “photo paper” which isn’t what i’m looking for. (and plain paper prints photos terrible looking). a perfect world, it would be more similar to magazine paper.
can an ET-8550 dye print on magazine paper?
i’m so sorry for the long comment but i have spent months in this and i have no clue where to start finding support for this! Thank you so much. i adore your work.
Thanks - glad it was of interest.
Have a look at my main [written] 8550 review where I discuss papers I tested.
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/
Where are you though - I mainly know UK sources of papers.
Something like Epson enhanced matte might do what you want - Magazine paper is likely to be poor unless you get a 'proofing paper' meant for inkjet
@@KeithCooper i’ll head to your article right away. And share a coffee, on me when i get to your website 💝
i’m located in the united states. i’m looking for a paper that is luster, but very thin (ease of cutting for collage)
Try Red River paper - they sent me several packs a while ago just to try out. Very helpful people, give them a ring and tell them what you want to do - they may have just the paper?
@@KeithCooper awesome! I’ll give them a ring!
In a previous video, I think you said the Epson ET-18100 EcoTank printer is the best dye ink printer for printing glossy photos on luster type paper, which I was going to ask you about, because the Canon Pro-200 should have a larger gamut, and featured some new state-of-the-art inks. So I was wondering why you chose the Epson 6-ink printer over the Canon 8-ink.
Is this the answer? Here, it sounds like you are specifically saying the 18100 is the best EcoTank printer for glossy prints on luster paper, not the best 13” dye based ink printer.
So you’re not saying the Epson 18100 prints better prints than the Canon Pro-200 on luster type paper? You’re just saying the Epson 18100 is the best EcoTank printer for doing such?
___________
You then say the Canon Pro-200 has the best color gamut of any 13-inch printer and in “how prints look on various papers,” because of its 8 inks.
So here, you seem to be saying that the Canon Pro-200 would have best results on various papers, which would include luster?
Does the Epson 18100 have a better result than the Canon Pro-200 in any way regarding the print quality, desireablity and pop, or were you just comparing the 18100 to Epson’s other EcoTank printers?
Thanks.
Ah - Take careful note of my caveats for 'best' in this very video ;-)
Yes,it is all in the fine print...
The ET-18100 is the best **ink tank** dye printer - it works very well on Lustre gloss paper - poorly on thicker/art media.
The PRO-200 is the best dye printer in terms of gamut and range of paper handled.
Depending on your list of criteria for 'best' one or the other takes it - certainly the ink tank printer will be cheaper to run and that matter to many. If you didn't care so much about ink costs you'd pick the 200 - aimed at different markets.
I'm not in anyway saying that one is 'best' without being most specific as to why and in what circumstances.
Sorry if it came across otherwise - this is one reason I still say to read my written reviews, as opposed to my off the cuff 'unscripted' videos ;-)
@@KeithCooper Thanks for clarifying!
“P5000 needs regular use…” What happens if it doesn’t get it? What would be “not quite regular enough” use? I once saw a comment that one blocked nozzle on an Epson ruins the printer until it gets repaired, so don’t buy them for home use, and I want to check its veracity. Your words, that I am quoting, hint that there is a real issue here. Thoughts?
Less use increases the chances of printer problems.. for the P5000 I have a reminder set to turn on the printer every week, just in case I've not printed. It's about levels of reliability - there is no definite failure induced by leaving one for a month.
However, there is a big difference between commercial printers and smaller consumer ones - they are designed for home [intermittent] use and are much more forgiving.
The statement is incomplete and as such unduly alarmist IMHO - was it from someone who is a fan of [or sells] another brand of printer? ';-)
Modern printers are generally more reliable in this respect as well.
Thank you Keith!
I've waffled on tossing this idea out as it has big pro's and con's for it - but, brain storming so I'll just throw it up: From your experience just declare some printer(s) as your STANDARD (maybe one standard for dye base, one for pigment - more than that and I can see this getting out of hand quickly).
Then you can say, besides the usual stuff, that printer in question handles matt papers better the standard (go out on a limb and say one to five stars of deviation), worse or the same with gloss; easier, worse, no better just different etc. for usability. So instead of hard numbers you have this subjective position compared to a known quantity. We all have biases and with many reviews with this system people should get an feel for your biases (or lack there of) so if their opinion on how mat or gloss prints turn out (just to grab one criteria to consider) deviates from yours, since you are comparing printers to the same standard printer they will know how much to weigh your thoughts on the reviewed printer.
One thing I had in mind; just how much printers improve over the years but I'm thinking we're at a plateau right now so it could be decades before we see any meaningful improvements there.
I'm pretty sure choosing a standard printer would be fairly easy. Just pick one you know real well. Doesn't even have to be the best, just draw a line in the sand and we go from there. I don't really know what to do with the numbers but if a printer is better or worse than the standard printing black & white prints - then I would find information like that useful.
A quite reasonable suggestion - thanks for taking the time.
I suspect it could be done, but likely not by myself - maybe if someone paid me [well] to do it, but I think it would take many months of work, a lot of printers and a lot of paper/ink.
Lines in the sand vanish twice a day where I grew up... ;-)
However, I'm afraid that my doing this, runs into deeper personal issues for me.
I have some difficulties with the whole concept of comparative reviews, and have a 20 year review policy which says Northlight doesn't do them, or award any sort of score in any category.
This was from 2016, and I've not changed my mind ;-)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/we-never-recommend-best-products/
I did discuss printing reviews with DPReview some time ago, but they are into percentages and gold stars, so no go there - I think the bigger issue was their funding ;-)
So, what is the best photo printer ?
My current choice would be an Epson P20000
But the Epson clogs like a beach, and the paper ,anagement is aweful compared to the canon pro 1000.
Also the pro 1000 has cheaper ink than the pro 300. Thats a difference that can help to know.
Also you and many others use the classic example of the novice with a piece of equipment, NEVER the example of a master with such equipment. That's different, tell me what 2 masters would choose and why. That's the best info. Put 2 masters, one with cheap equipment and one with expensive equipment and show the results. Thats the good stuff.
Yes - my more 'expert' opinions appear in the main [written] reviews which are longer, more detailed and updated over time (including the PRO-1000 from when it first came out). They also go back further than the videos, which are generally intended as supplements to the written stuff.
There are many videos covering high end printers and more advanced use - this particular video is aimed people who would ask the 'which is the best' printer.
Personally I'd still take a P20000 - the article also shows why this might not be a particularly helpful answer to someone asking me 'which printer is best' ;-)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p20000-printer-review/