Re: [photo-3d] Computer Printers

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Davis wrote:
> At 11:49 PM 7/20/2000, you wrote:
> >My HP Deskjet 682C has been acting up, and I am considering a new
> >printer. I really need it mainly for the basic utilitarian text printing
> >not necessarily "photo quality printing". But I thought I should at
> >least consider the option of something that would make fair photo
> >"prints" (i.e. what the computer industry calls "photo quality"). And it
> >would be nice if there were a model that would print on 3.5 x 7 or 4 x 7
> >stereocard stock (at least the thinner 2 ply stuff, thickness more like
> >a Q-VU, rather than full thickness matboard). I did purchase a slide
> >scanner recently.
> 
> I just bought an Epson 1270 which is fantastic!!!  It prints on many 
> different kinds of media, and the inks are claimed to be "archival."  The 
> 1270 is the large format (up to 13" wide) version.  The 870 is essentially 
> identical, but doesn't handle the wider paper.  For the sizes you 
> mentioned, the 870 sounds like an ideal choice.
> 

I have the Epson 750 (the generation before the 870/875/1270).  It's a
nice printer and the newer ones are supposed to be better.

I would like to point out a few things about any of these printers.

First, they are "photo quality" if you've been getting pretty bad
4x6's from a one hour lab.  Compared to a good 8x10 print they aren't
there yet.  This isn't bad.  They just look different (just as
photographs look different than oil paintings) and that can be a plus.
I think there is too much emphasis on the output from these printers
looking like a silver based photograph.

Second, take "archival" (in this case it means long lasting) rating
with a grain of salt.  The ink and paper have to be tested together.
If you use the ink with a different paper the results (both color
reproduction and "archival" quality) will be different.  Also there
have been problems with the "archival" inks and paper for the Epson
870/875/1270.  The "archival" rating is only as good as the test
environment, and apparently ozone in the display environment can
adversely effect the print.  There is a work around (I think you're
supposed to let the print air our and dry in a dark environment (e.g.,
a paper box) for 24 hours before displaying).

Third, make sure the grain of salt mentioned above is at least rock
sized, if not boulder sized.  The length of time for these "archival"
claims (20-100 years) is hardly all that long compared to other media.
Dyes are not archival.  The next generation of Epson printers will use
pigments instead of dyes, and so should achive much longer life times,
but are also targeted at the commercial market and will be much more
expensive.

Fourth, printers change even faster than digicams.  You'll notice that
in the last year or so we've gone through three generations of printer
technology (750/1200 => 870/875/1270 => 2000P/7000P/7500P).  Don't
worry about it.  Pick a printer that meats your needs and be happy.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"