New Printer anyone

David · Feb 04, 2009, 17:55:46

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/product/seo/258243?camp_id=Wk40_09_greatSavings&source_id=aw&camp_id=pc%20world

Looks good...but then its me

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 17:58:35

Not bad, David, but I'd avoid an Epson myself.

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:01:59

I have one and have been pleased with it.its not that old but the phots are really good and the refills good value

I like the design of these and the functions too

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:04:45

I've always found Epsons prone to nozzle block, and they tend to use a lot of ink in self-clean routines, so I moved to HP and Canon.

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:11:11

I cant say this one has given any problem like that at all.Im not a heavy user to be honest so its not overworked but the photos are very good,Im not sure they would be to you or Sue ?

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:17:15

Epson was the photo-printer of choice in the graphics industry for many years, David, they were the first printer manufacturer to produce profiles. I feel that they are a little heavy in their reproduction, but only if you compare side-by-side with others. HP have a big excursion into the greens due to their use of the sRGB profile. Canon is my choice at the moment as they use AdobeRGB as their colour profile, and that has the biggest gamut of all.

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:22:29

Thats put me in my place

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:26:40

Just trying to explain why I made my choices, David. In a related matter, I use HP scanners for documents, because they are exceptionally good at that task, but for photographic work, I use Canon or another brand who's name has completely escaped me at present.

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:29:58

You do know a ton more about photography and view through a professional eye automatically.

I will shuuter my face

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:31:11

I have to confess that the habits of a working lifetime die hard, it's why I buy Eizo monitors and Gretag McBeth calibrators.

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:32:13

Microtek, that was the name that blanked. Very good scanning software with them, ideal for doing pre-scan corrections.

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:32:53

See thats what I mean............Im still struggling with a poloroid

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:33:47

QuoteMicrotek, that was the name that blanked. Very good scanning software with them, ideal for doing pre-scan corrections.

And the price ?

In todays money not in groats

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:34:15

Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 04, 2009, 18:32:53
See thats what I mean............Im still struggling with a poloroid

Like cooking, it's easier to learn this stuff when someone shows you - colour spaces are mind-blowing as a concept.

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:35:36

Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 04, 2009, 18:33:47
And the price ?

In todays money not in groats

£115 - £2000.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/B000VPVQRK/new

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:35:45

You cant teach a dog new tricks.......not this one anyway

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:37:33

I never stopped learning, David - I started out as a pure typographer, I had to learn reprographics as I went. Flatbed scanners and Photoshop came long after my formal training.

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:37:48

Quote from: Rik on Feb 04, 2009, 18:35:36
£115 - £2000.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/B000VPVQRK/new

That was close,good job I wasnt signed in I nearly hit one clicked buy

Why do I have the feeling yours would be at the top estimate

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:40:35

QuoteI never stopped learning, David - I started out as a pure typographer, I had to learn reprographics as I went. Flatbed scanners and Photoshop came long after my formal training.

The mind has to be stimulated by the subject or you are flogging a dead horse......there are photographers and then there are the aim and shoot,TV and ads try and tell us we can get amazing results etc,but without that "formal training " along with the appetite for it...its an illusion perpetrated by Ad men

Glenn · Feb 04, 2009, 18:41:03

Side by with the same photograph, one printed on an Epson DX6000, the other on a Canon MP610, I must say that I prefer the Canon

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:43:25

Canon tend to have more subtlety of tone, I find, Glenn, and are 'lighter' in feel. I can pretty much match my calibrated monitor to a Canon print, I could never achieve that with an Epson.

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:43:52

Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 04, 2009, 18:37:48

That was close,good job I wasnt signed in I nearly hit one clicked buy

Why do I have the feeling yours would be at the top estimate

Not any more, the £115 would be more than adequate for my needs.

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 18:44:59

Quote from: badpianoplayer on Feb 04, 2009, 18:40:35
The mind has to be stimulated by the subject or you are flogging a dead horse......there are photographers and then there are the aim and shoot,TV and ads try and tell us we can get amazing results etc,but without that "formal training " along with the appetite for it...its an illusion perpetrated by Ad men

The thing about photography is that the more you learn, the better your pictures. I've been addicted for more than 50 years, and I am still learning how to get the best out of the medium (digital requires some relearning).

David · Feb 04, 2009, 18:55:50

My uncle was a proffesional photographer and back then you did need to know your stuf,given you are youger I would still think you did the same training .
There is hope for some as you say ref Digital photography.

Is it a different club though

Same subject I would imagine 2 different appraoches and maybe even some resentment

Rik · Feb 04, 2009, 19:00:56

My photographic 'training' was as an amateur, but I was lucky to work with top photographers in the 60s and 70s, and so picked up more information during the day job. In addition, I was adopted by the head of the internal photographic unit, and he was great - gave me lessons, tips and lots of very cheap film. Prior to digital, film and processing costs were a big barrier to experimentation, but I never had to worry about that. Being able to afford mistakes made me a much better photographer.

Most serious amateurs now use digital, there's no conflict that I've seen. Indeed, I wanted to get rid of a Durst enlarger a few years ago, but couldn't find a home for it as everyone was working digitally.

The best way to view digital cameras, imo, is to regard them as film transparency. Expose for the highlights and mid-tones, let the shadows take care of themselves. The worst error, digitally, is to under expose the mid tones, that will fill the shot with hard to remove noise.