On Sep 13, 2016, at 1:56 PM, forums@walkerblackwell.com wrote:
On Sep 13, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote: On 13 Sep 2016, at 19:39, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
I pretty much just need 44", photo quality, and not likely to die or otherwise eat me alive in maintenance and repairs.
I choose to use Epson 9900s but I wouldn’t recommend them for low volume work.
I second what Marin Orpen says. Infrequent use with a 99 can be more expensive than getting it printed by a professional fine-art lab.
Thanks; I can appreciate that. But the flip side is that then I'm either dependent on the profiles supplied by the lab or I'm spending insane amounts on building my own profiles for their printers -- plus I'm limited by their paper selection, and so on. Likely can't (affordably) do front-and-back printing, either, which accounts for a fair ratio of the printing I do. Which means there might not be a good answer, I realize...I'm mostly looking for the least worst direction to head in. Knowing that the Epson 9900s should be avoided is good...but does Epson have any not-miserable options? Does Canon? (Or HP, or...?) I see that Canon is still using consumable heads, and they still map out clogged nozzles. That's a recipe for frequent replacement...once a nozzle clogs, even if it's something that might be cleanable if approached right, it never gets any more ink pushed through it, making the clog permanent. Once you lose enough nozzles, the head is toast. Thanks, b&