[human]

OK, I bought this thing a week ago and I still don't have a single good-looking print in the growing pile of rejects on my desk. Everything looks very washed-out and all attempts I've made to correct this have failed dismally. Some stuff I've tried:

1. Played with Gamma settings. Default was 1.8 (same setting as my monitors) but I tried the others (1.5 and 2.2). I learned about somebody else (on a PC) having issues with the default Gamma here: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...800/page_1.htm

Prints got a little darker and lighter but they were all still very washed-out and flat compared to output from my old Epson Stylus Photo 820. The comparisons were made with prints from the same apps (Photoshop and iPhoto) on the same machine.

2. Played with driver settings including Print Settings, ColorSync and Color Management within the OS 10.3.9 printer dialog box *and* the Color Space and Printer Space controls within Photoshop's Print with Preview dialog. All tests were printed on Epson Premium Glossy Photo paper using the cartridges that shipped with the printer. All tests were printed using the Best Photo option as per the photo-i site's suggestion that RPM didn't improve quality in their testing. I cleaned and aligned the print heads and nozzles. I've tried with GLoss Optimizer off and on. I've saved six or seven presets in the OS printer dialog experimenting with various color settings and nothing's worked. A friend is bringing over a hardware calibrator later today but after that this thing is going back to Fry's.

I've been working on Macs and printing to various printers since about OS 7 so I'm not completely clueless on the process--I just can't get a decent print out of this thing. I see online that reviewers love this printer:

http://www.macworld.com/2005/04/revi...1800/index.php
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1779209,00.asp

but I'm getting bit tired of all the fruitless tinkering. So far it's all been for nothing and after having finally reset everything to defaults several times I'm about to give up and get a Canon i9900.

If anybody has any idea what I might be doing wrong, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.

[OreoCookie]

Do a search on inkjet Canon in the forums. You'll see that you shouldn't bother and just get the Canon.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Do a search on inkjet Canon in the forums. You'll see that you shouldn't bother and just get the Canon.

Exactly what he said. Wait till that Epson starts clogging after every 3 prints.

You will be happy with the Canon. Any canon.

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Exactly what he said. Wait till that Epson starts clogging after every 3 prints.

You will be happy with the Canon. Any canon.

What?

What a bunch of morons. It seems strange that nearly all professional photographers (that is, those who make MONEY from their photography) recommend and use Epson printers. In particular, they use the 2200 and 4000 (some ballers use the 9600). They are extremely capable printers. Not to mention, there are ICC profiles from a number of 3rd party paper and ink vendors so you get exact color gamut matches.

And I'm no Canon hater -- I use (and love) their cameras. D60 for 3 years, and 1D mark II for 6 months. They make excellent cameras, and their printers are very good as well. But they're dye based printers; they're not archival, and they are not "THE industry standard for photography" like Epson printers are. Ergo, if you can't get good prints on an Epson, the problem is with YOU, not with the printer.

Now the Epson 1800 is pigment based, of course, instead of dye based, so they may require a bump in saturation in the photo to get what you want. The 1280, etc., is dye based, so there will be more "pop" in the 1280 print than the 1800, by default. This would be obviated if you used the correct ICC profile which adjusts the gamut, of course.

To human: are you using the ICC profiles that ship with the printer, that are specifically matched to the paper type you are using?

I have an R800, and it makes beautiful photos.

[OreoCookie]

Alternatively, you can take a look at the review of both printers at Steve's Digicams ... the Canon will not just offer the same or better print quality, but it will be a lot lot faster. The i9900 is up to ten times as fast (borderless full-format photo) than the Epson 2200 (dunno how it compares to the R1800).

(SWG is in the publishing business, BTW.)

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by CatOne

What?

What a bunch of morons.

What an in-depth and inciteful rebuttal.

[cef]

I've been using the R800 (older, narrow-format version of the R1800) which uses the same cartridges as the 1800, and I haven't had any of these problems. The whole process was plug-n-go. Perhaps the printer is defective?

What kind of paper are you using? The only setting you should need to change (usually) is the paper type, to match the paper.

I've found photos to look washed out on regular paper, but FAR SUPERIOR to Canons or anything else on photo paper.

As CatOne said, the Epsons are used by lots of pros on commercial projects with great results (myself included). Severed Hand -- yeah, the nozzles used to clog up easily (lost an old 960 myself that way), but that was back in the days of horses and buggies. For years now the Epsons have been no better or worse than anyone else reliabililty-wise.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I've had new modern epsons that still bust. The fact that you cannot leave them on, the heads cannot be replaced and they are highly prone to clogging.

Look at Macintouch. it is FULL or reports that say the exact same thing as I am, the epsons clog, the canons just work.

[X-Ray]

Yes, and the Canon prints will fade almost as fast as they print. For archival prints it's either
Epson or HP.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by X-Ray

Yes, and the Canon prints will fade almost as fast as they print. For archival prints it's either
Epson or HP.

Most canon models are rated for 25 years. Unless you are saying Epsons take 25 years to print?

[cef]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I've had new modern epsons that still bust. The fact that you cannot leave them on, the heads cannot be replaced and they are highly prone to clogging.

Look at Macintouch. it is FULL or reports that say the exact same thing as I am, the epsons clog, the canons just work.

Ah well, maybe I've been lucky with the two R800s I work to death! But yes, I _have_ seen negative reports about the Rxx series. Also negative reports about the new Pixmas and Canons in general. Also good reports about both.

YMMV, as is always the case with technology.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by X-Ray

Yes, and the Canon prints will fade almost as fast as they print. For archival prints it's either Epson or HP.

What? If you use the correct paper, it won't fade. I have photos I printed with my old (deceased) S630 and they still look perfectly fine.

This usually boils down to a theoretical argument.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by cef

Ah well, maybe I've been lucky with the two R800s I work to death! But yes, I _have_ seen negative reports about the Rxx series. Also negative reports about the new Pixmas and Canons in general. Also good reports about both.

YMMV, as is always the case with technology.

What and where have you seen anything negative about the Canons?

[human]

>To human: are you using the ICC profiles that ship with the printer, that are specifically matched to the paper type you are using?

>What kind of paper are you using? The only setting you should need to change (usually) is the paper type, to match the paper.

Yes, I've selected the right profile and the right paper. I'm using all Epson original paper and ink. I've gotten some better prints now at this point but I'm still pretty unhappy with the required degree of color-tweaking I've had to do inside the driver. Which brings me to CatOne's observation:

>if you can't get good prints on an Epson, the problem is with YOU, not with the printer.

I agree with this observation up to the point where I'm spending way too much time tinkering to simply get as nice a print as my old $100 EPSON 820 used to give me. This printer may be a race-car and all I want is a little Toyota or something. For the record I work sometimes as a mac tech and have set up plenty of printers without encountering this sort of trouble in a new-out-of-the-box inkjet.

[human]

Also, thanks everybody for the feedback. I didn't realize the Epson/Canon thing was approaching the Mac/PC debate for contumaciousness :-)

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Can you return it?

[human]

Yeah, I can still return it. That's the main reason I bought it at the local Fry's Electronics instead of online for cheaper. But just now I got my first really excellent print. After hearing advice that I should turn off color management in the printer driver I went *back* to the default *off* setting (that gave me so many lousy prints at first) and that seems to have helped this time. I also hardware-calibrated my monitors today and I think that helped. I think it also helped that the pic was a RAW file from a Canon D20 and not a jpeg from my own S100, S45, S50 or even my EOS 300 (digital rebel--stupidest product name ever).

[human]

Hey, I think I've discovered at least one of the problems with this printer. The profiles I'm saving in the driver interface AREN'T BEING SAVED. At least not everytime. When I return to a saved (by me) preset, at least half the time the paper goes from the preset of Glossy Premium Photo Paper to either Enhanced Matte or sometimes even Plain Paper. I believe the driver settings are supposed to stay the same if you print the same document a second time but that's not how it's workng here. Furthermore it appears that I have to Save the preset again *every* time I change any of the settings. Bt that I mean it's not cumulative--I can't change the paper and then change the color options and save it at the end. I lose my Paper changes when I go to the pulldown for Color. This is hinky. If I have to redo all my printer settings (or at least check them all to see that they haven't changed) for every print I do--that's unnacceptable. And no, I'm not running Tiger on this machine--we're still 10.3.9. On a positive note, I'm getting some beautiful output finally.

[cef]

Originally Posted by human

This is hinky. If I have to redo all my printer settings (or at least check them all to see that they haven't changed) for every print I do--that's unnacceptable.

I have the same problem. Drives me nuts. However, if you use Adobe InDesign (and create InDesign printer presets) it somehow _does_ save the printer-level settings.

Dunno about photoshop or illustrator, as I do most of my specialty-paper printing from InDesign and just manually set the paper type everywhere else.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

What? If you use the correct paper, it won't fade. I have photos I printed with my old (deceased) S630 and they still look perfectly fine.

This usually boils down to a theoretical argument.

No, I have a i960 and prints printed on Canon's Photo Paper Pro Glossy have faded for me within 6-9 months hanging on my wall. Not noticeable but if you compare to the JPEG, you can plainly see the fading.

However, other papers have done great with this printer and I still love it!

[tooki]

Something to try to prevent fading of prints is to make sure they're behind glass.

(I did a test print on plain paper [lowest denominator] and masked off part of it, and put it in the sun for a year: no fading at all. That was on an i850.)

tooki

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by itguy05

No, I have a i960 and prints printed on Canon's Photo Paper Pro Glossy have faded for me within 6-9 months hanging on my wall. Not noticeable but if you compare to the JPEG, you can plainly see the fading.

However, other papers have done great with this printer and I still love it!

You sure they were behing UV-protected glass?

[maxintosh]

For what it's worth, my Canon i860 is leaving streaks and bits of random ink all over my prints, even after cleaning and alignment :-\

Exactly how all my Epsons failed.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You sure they were behing UV-protected glass?

Nope, stapled to my cork board at work. Same as I hang all my pics.

I've been using Red River papers as well as some Kirkland I picked up at Costco at the reccomendations from users at www.depreview.com

[itguy05]

Did you ever get it sorted out?

Curious as I picked up an R1800 2 weeks ago and got great prints right out of the box. Absolutely stunning at 13x19 from my 10d.

Prints match my Powerbook perfectly.

Still like my i960 (probably eBaying with my iMac), but I got the R1800 for 2 reasons:
1) Wanted to print big
2) Will be staring selling my work, so archival is a concern.

If it were not for #2, I would have bought another Canon.