Looking for site for comparing printers

[mtpaper]

Hi all -
Does anyone know of a site as wonderful as this one, where I can search for a photo printer by selecting criteria?

For eg, I want:
- borderless up to 8.5x11
- great for color photos
- great for b/w photos
- I don't care about text or regular graphics
- non-clogging
- Pict-Bridge enabled
- preferably archival ink

I'd been leaning towards the Canon 9900, but I'm reticent because of the testing saying it will fade in 25 years, and because I haven't read anything yet about how it handles b/w photos.

Thank you-
Marion in Rochester

[erichlund]

People get all hung up on this 25 vs. 75 vs. 200 stuff. Make digital backups. Digital doesn't fade. If you like the performance of the 9900, get it for what you get now. After all, it only costs a few bucks to reprint a faded photo.

In looking at the different printers, I haven't yet decided whether to go with the broader paper handling of the Epsons or the faster speed of the Canon's. The Epson 2200 and R800 are supposed to do the best on B&W, with the correct ink selection and paper combination. Since I'm not in any real hurry, I'm going to wait and see if Epson updates the 2200.

Cheers,
Eric

[leewitt]

"People get all hung up on this 25 vs. 75 vs. 200 stuff. Make digital backups. Digital doesn't fade. If you like the performance of the 9900, get it for what you get now. After all, it only costs a few bucks to reprint a faded photo."
Disagree. How do you reprint a print that you have sold? Do you give a money back guarantee? Even if you are not selling, what about a print you have given as a gift to a friend or a member of the family? Do you tell them that the print will fade so call you for another copy? There are numerous circumstances where print longevity is called for.

[erichlund]

True, I had not considered the pro. Longevity would be of greater concern there.

However, even the least of the high end printers seems to guarantee 25 years. If you really need 200 years, Epson is the only choice I know of, so get that.

Yes, I have suggested reprinting in the future. My current printer, an HP1220C, doesn't give great longevity, though some paper combinations work better than others. I also suggest methods of preserving photos for the longest possible time.

I'm finding, more and more, photos are passed electronically and viewed electronically as well. While electronic photo displays are still expensive, I suspect they will eventually replace paper photos as the primary means of viewing. I understand that art photos and "cherished" memories will still be printed, but there may come a time when the client buys the electronic version of the photos and does their own printing or sources special printing to a specialist. I'll bet that scares the bejeebees out of the pros. No more keeping the negatives hostage!

Cheers,
Eric

[George Riehm]

I'm finding, more and more, photos are passed electronically and viewed electronically as well. While electronic photo displays are still expensive, I suspect they will eventually replace paper photos as the primary means of viewing. I understand that art photos and "cherished" memories will still be printed, but there may come a time when the client buys the electronic version of the photos and does their own printing or sources special printing to a specialist. I'll bet that scares the bejeebees out of the pros. No more keeping the negatives hostage!

Cheers,
Eric

Actually, the copies can be digitally "watermarked" and protected and most pros now shoot in RAW which not only nets better workflow and end product, but needs to be post processed. Neither of these is dificult to overcome, but they still add a deterent factor to copyright infringement, which the average consumer would not likely know about.

There are other more secure ways to protect copyright originals as well. Even with prints, you need only have a low cost scanner to make copies of just about anything, so it's a continuing problem for those making a living at protrait photography.