Recommend high volume photo printing on inkjet

[costadinos]

The x900 Series or ANY epson Pro Series BUT the 3800/3880 all suffer from stagnancy, these machines want to print and dont want to stop
if you take it even serious you could start printing for other customers with their printjobs since its really affordable with a refilling solution.

Agreed on that; I know several guys that use a x900 for very low volume work (a couple of prints every week) and all of them have much more serious clogging issues than mine, even though they use OEM inks.
These machines are workhorses. Once they start printing they go on and on.
And as I mentioned earlier I now do all my print jobs with these printers, from 4x6s to canvases to posters to albums. The cost per print is even lower than a traditional minilab, and the quality is second to none.

 

[CakeHole]

How about a Canon imagePROGRAF iPF6400 no idea what that is like for refilling but it has large carts/ink tanks and roll printing
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Work/Products/Professional_Print/Large_Format/iPF6400/#p-specification
Personally at this level of things i think a roll printing device rather than feeding the thing single sheets constantly is the way to go. They also generally come with MUCH MUCH bigger carts than single sheet fed printers. Sure you will have to cut images once printed but the time that will take will probably be equal or more likely less than having to baby sit a sheet feed printer and having to keep refilling it with paper and refilling the ink. I personally would not touch an Epson, mainly due to clogging experiences with the brand, though i freely admit it was not a model anywhere near this level.

 

[ullipops]

Just read some more about the 4900 and the amount of negative reviews is staggering. People are furious at Epson for what looks like flawed design. There was even a class action lawsuit under way and funnily enough I could find Mark Segal, who wrote that positive review on Luminous Landscape, on one of the forums complaining about his 4900, slagging Epson's customer service and generally being frustrated like so many others.

@cls, is there a fix for this 'main culprit' being the dampening and tubing assembly?

A LOT of bitter buyers have been told by Epson techs that it needed a new print head costing more than what they payed for the printer, do you think many of these could in fact be fixed by replacing/cleaning the pump unit?

I don't think I have the guts to get one of those unless something could be easily fixed to make them dependable. Maybe if I printed a lot year round to keep it happy but school photography is seasonal so the idle periods I think would kill it quickly.

 

[ullipops]

How about a Canon imagePROGRAF iPF6400 no idea what that is like for refilling but it has large carts/ink tanks and roll printing
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Work/Products/Professional_Print/Large_Format/iPF6400/#p-specification
Personally at this level of things i think a roll printing device rather than feeding the thing single sheets constantly is the way to go. They also generally come with MUCH MUCH bigger carts than single sheet fed printers. Sure you will have to cut images once printed but the time that will take will probably be equal or more likely less than having to baby sit a sheet feed printer and having to keep refilling it with paper and refilling the ink. I personally would not touch an Epson, mainly due to clogging experiences with the brand, though i freely admit it was not a model anywhere near this level.

That one looks good and I agree on the baby sitting problem lol. I guess there is no way around cutting I just hope it is possible to make it looking good and accurate.

 

[CakeHole]

A bit more reading to convince you lol
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf6450-pt1.html

In part 2 of his review near the end he says....
"General printer use
Not one clogged head or paper misfeed or smudge of ink during the entire time I had the printer. It just worked.
Setup was straightforward and the software easy to install.
Profiling was effective for a variety of paper types, and I now have a large pile of excellent prints sitting around looking for people's walls to go on."

That thing i believe will also print onto canvas if you really wanted to go totally over the top with the school printing lol

 

[Emulator]

I think this thread shows PrinterKnowledge at its best. What an excellent thread.

 

[costadinos]

Just read some more about the 4900 and the amount of negative reviews is staggering. People are furious at Epson for what looks like flawed design. There was even a class action lawsuit under way and funnily enough I could find Mark Segal, who wrote that positive review on Luminous Landscape, on one of the forums complaining about his 4900, slagging Epson's customer service and generally being frustrated like so many others.

@cls, is there a fix for this 'main culprit' being the dampening and tubing assembly?

A LOT of bitter buyers have been told by Epson techs that it needed a new print head costing more than what they payed for the printer, do you think many of these could in fact be fixed by replacing/cleaning the pump unit?

I don't think I have the guts to get one of those unless something could be easily fixed to make them dependable. Maybe if I printed a lot year round to keep it happy but school photography is seasonal so the idle periods I think would kill it quickly.

The best think you can do is get the printer and the extended warranty, and never use the original cartridges that come with the printer. If a problem arises, just remove the refillables, install the OEM cartridges and send it to Epson.
Even if you do get lucky enough and get a problematic printer, they will be forced to repair it under warranty. I doubt they could prove you ever used non-OEM inks and void the warranty.

As for the Canon, I wouldn't go with that unless I was sure I could get some good 3rd party ink for it. And also keep in mind that their printheads are rated for 4L of ink throughput, you'll have to take into consideration the cost of the printheads (they are not cheap) as well. I know some guys with Canons and they do replace the printheads twice or more a year, not an insignificant expense. Imagine buying say 10L of inks for 500eur and at the same time know that you'll have to factor in almost twice as much as that for the printheads...

 

[CakeHole]

the IPF6450 has two printheads PF05 in germany or genrerally Europe it retails for 330€ each
and about 390 USD in us

the Printhead for the canon model is really a expendable part due to the bubble jet technology it suffers from constant deterioration while in use

but the exchange at least it user friendly and does not take longer than 2min itself plus the ink charge automatically done by the machine itself.

A print head in any model of printer be it an Epson, Canon or whatever no matter the tech "suffers from deterioration while in use" thats generally what happens with any item which is mechanical in nature.

The best think you can do is get the printer and the extended warranty, and never use the original cartridges that come with the printer. If a problem arises, just remove the refillables, install the OEM cartridges and send it to Epson.

NO the best thing he can do is avoid models with known issues altogether.

Even if you do get lucky enough and get a problematic printer, they will be forced to repair it under warranty. I doubt they could prove you ever used non-OEM inks and void the warranty.

If they wanted they or any manufacturer could prove that quite easily, every ink has its own "recipe" so to speak they would only have to analyse the ink in the waste tank, the reality that they would though is likely slim, though i imagine greater on a printer that is thousands of dollars rather than hundreds. Some companies will do anything to shirk their responsibility and save money.

As for the Canon, I wouldn't go with that unless I was sure I could get some good 3rd party ink for it.

Getting decent ink for it would be no harder than getting decent ink for any Epson model. Im not sure why you would think getting ink for an Epson would be easier.

And also keep in mind that their printheads are rated for 4L of ink throughput, you'll have to take into consideration the cost of the printheads (they are not cheap) as well.

4 Litres of ink is a massive amount if you read the review i posted he mentions....
"The 24"x26" circular 'Royal crescent' print below took just over 9 minute to print and used fractionally over 5ml of ink"
so by my maths he would have to do 800 of them before he consumed 4 litres of ink, based on them all taking 9 minutes that equates out to 7200 minutes of head use or 120 hours constant use. or if you want he would have to do prints that equate to a footprint of 19200 inches x 20800 inches. Thats several squared miles.

Even then i highly doubt the print head would be dead..... Any figures a manufacturer states will be GUIDELINES, you only have to look at people on here using the same printer for years which is well past any manufacturer GUIDELINE.

I know some guys with Canons and they do replace the printheads twice or more a year, not an insignificant expense. Imagine buying say 10L of inks for 500eur and at the same time know that you'll have to factor in almost twice as much as that for the printheads...

Im not going to say utter nonsense, but i will say anyone having to replace printheads in any printer twice a year, either is doing something for the printhead to kill itself (ink starvation more than likely) or printing to such a degree they should be using a commercial printer. To even suggest replacing printheads twice a year would be needed especially when his work is at a school and only seasonal for a few months a year is ridiculous and sounds like nothing more than a wild claim to try to steer him away from a particular model.

 

[costadinos]

Getting decent ink for it would be no harder than getting decent ink for any Epson model. Im not sure why you would think getting ink for an Epson would be easier.

I can think of several reputable ink manufacturers that widely support most Epson models but only a very small number of Canon and HP printers. To name a few, Inktec, Inkrepublic, Cone, Champion, OCP and so on. As a matter of fact, the only manufacturer I know of that makes ink for the newest Canon 12 color models is ImageSpecialists.
With Epson you get more options, both quality and cost-wise.

4 Litres of ink is a massive amount if you read the review i posted he mentions....
"The 24"x26" circular 'Royal crescent' print below took just over 9 minute to print and used fractionally over 5ml of ink"
so by my maths he would have to do 800 of them before he consumed 4 litres of ink, based on them all taking 9 minutes that equates out to 7200 minutes of head use or 120 hours constant use. or if you want he would have to do prints that equate to a footprint of 19200 inches x 20800 inches. Thats several squared miles.

Even then i highly doubt the print head would be dead..... Any figures a manufacturer states will be GUIDELINES, you only have to look at people on here using the same printer for years which is well past any manufacturer GUIDELINE.

In general, full coverage photographic prints require 1ml of ink per A4 (give or take).
This is just my opinion, but in a commercial environment 4L is a very very small amount of ink.
The way I have my own equipment set up now for instance, If I were to switch to Canon, I should increase the prices I sell my prints for by a factor of about 2x to compensate for the cost of the printheads. The way I see it, a set of printheads will cost me as much as the ink that will go through them, and probably more.
With my Epsons I have printed several times that, so I am already past the point where anybody can suggest that Canons are the better option because Epsons fail. See, I have one 7900 with 40 liters gone through to date, with its printhead costing $1500 or so and still working like the day I bought it. Had I been using a Canon I would have replaced 10 printheads by now, costing me three times the money the Epson head costs...

Let's see it from my perspective; to print one 30-spread digital album you'd need about 120ml of ink. So, a Canon printhead would only be good for printing about 30-40 albums. Doesn't look that impressive when thinking it like that.
And, by the way, try repeating your math above; 800 24x26" prints is NOT equivalent to a 19200x20800" print, but to a 19200x26" print, which is about 300 square meters, not square miles, more or less the area of the walls of a typical house

Im not going to say utter nonsense, but i will say anyone having to replace printheads in any printer twice a year, either is doing something for the printhead to kill itself (ink starvation more than likely) or printing to such a degree they should be using a commercial printer. To even suggest replacing printheads twice a year would be needed especially when his work is at a school and only seasonal for a few months a year is ridiculous and sounds like nothing more than a wild claim to try to steer him away from a particular model.

There are some of us that buy a commercial printer to do commercial work you know. That's what I do and that's what the Canon guys do. It's not unusual to go through tens of liters of ink per year, so the Canons will need their heads replaced once every few months. I am not trying to steer him away from any model. nor do I am in any way affiliated with Epson. I'm stating things as I see them. Epson printers (if they don't malfunction of course) are more economical in the long run than Canons.

 

[CakeHole]

give me one printer where NO issues arise at any given tyme?

I say troll

And i say further conversation with you is pointless for 2 reasons.

1) I said "KNOWN" issues and that is what the Epsons you recommended have.
2) You obviously did not read what i stated and even if you did this isnt some childish site so take your name calling elsewhere. This forum is a respectable place and it can do without pathetic things like this.