Linux Photo Printer recommendations
Hi, Does anyone have a recommendation of a good photo printer under Linux? I've heard good things about Epson printers, specifically the 2200 series. I need a printer with USB connection, and good quality output (under Linux, gimp-print?) of pictures/photos. Thanks, John
I have a 960 Photo printer. Excellent print quality and drivers were available on a RHL9 install. A friend has a 2200 running on a Mac: it appears to be identical to the 960, just wider to accomodate larger sheet size. That said, beware of consumeables $$$!!!!! I've spent far more in ink and paper since January than I paid for the printer! (And I really don't print a lot.)
Hi,
Does anyone have a recommendation of a good photo printer under Linux? I've heard good things about Epson printers, specifically the 2200 series.
I need a printer with USB connection, and good quality output (under Linux, gimp-print?) of pictures/photos.
Thanks, John _______________________________________________
Peter> I have a 960 Photo printer. Excellent print quality and drivers Peter> were available on a RHL9 install. A friend has a 2200 running Peter> on a Mac: it appears to be identical to the 960, just wider to Peter> accomodate larger sheet size. Just make it clear, you're talking about the Epson printers here, right? Peter> That said, beware of consumeables $$$!!!!! Yeah, that's the gotcha. For me, the big issue is no hassle use from within Debian. The wife will also want to use it from Windows, but that's another story. Actually, now that I think about it, a Network printer (ok, samba shares would be fine too) is probably a key thing, so that we both have access to either printer (we already have a laserjet 4M) from either system. Of course she's upstairs and I'm in the basement. Lots of up and down in my future. :] Peter> I've spent far more in ink and paper since January than I paid Peter> for the printer! (And I really don't print a lot.) How many pictures can you print before you see to have to get new cartridges? Or is the paper the expensive part? John
Peter> I have a 960 Photo printer. Excellent print quality and drivers Peter> were available on a RHL9 install. A friend has a 2200 running Peter> on a Mac: it appears to be identical to the 960, just wider to Peter> accomodate larger sheet size.
Just make it clear, you're talking about the Epson printers here, right?
yes
Peter> That said, beware of consumeables $$$!!!!!
Yeah, that's the gotcha. For me, the big issue is no hassle use from within Debian. The wife will also want to use it from Windows, but that's another story.
Actually, now that I think about it, a Network printer (ok, samba shares would be fine too) is probably a key thing, so that we both have access to either printer (we already have a laserjet 4M) from either system. Of course she's upstairs and I'm in the basement. Lots of up and down in my future. :]
Mine is dual-connected: via usb to "my" computer and via a jet-direct box for linux/network printing. Windows network printing (for example from my wife's laptop) is painfully slow to initialize, she complains all the time about that. Wasn't a problem when we had an HP1220 previously.
Peter> I've spent far more in ink and paper since January than I paid Peter> for the printer! (And I really don't print a lot.)
How many pictures can you print before you see to have to get new cartridges? Or is the paper the expensive part?
Like the Epson 2200, this one has 7 ink cartridges: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, plus Light Cyan, Light Magenta, and 2(!!) black cartridges. Running approx $9.95@ mailorder. A full box of 50 sheets 8.5x11 glossy paper (~$23 from Amazon) seems to use up a full ink set, maybe a little more depending on coverage. You'd think that roll paper might be cheaper, but I haven't found that to be the case. (Maybe supply and demand at work here.) I'm on my 3rd box of paper since January. Also, generic printing in less that "High Quality Photo" mode seems to much less ink. -Peter
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:45:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Peter Gutowski" <peter@linuxchamps.com> I have a 960 Photo printer. Excellent print quality and drivers were available on a RHL9 install. A friend has a 2200 running on a Mac: it appears to be identical to the 960, just wider to accomodate larger sheet size. That said, beware of consumeables $$$!!!!! I've spent far more in ink and paper since January than I paid for the printer! (And I really don't print a lot.) For Linux use, I would recommend the 2200 over the 960 hands down, if you can use Gimp-Print 5.0 (which is currently in beta). I have both of them. I consider myself qualified on this subject, as the Gimp-Print project lead. These printers are not the same; the 2200 uses UltraChrome inks (which are pigment-based) while the 960 uses conventional dye-based inks. Somewhat surprisingly, the 2200 has a wider gamut than the 960 (usually pigment inks have narrow gamut). However, it's not hard to get a good grayscale out of that printer. The 960, despite its tiny smallest drop size of 2 pl (vs. 4 pl for the 2200) does not produce as good output in my opinion. You really need to use the highest resolution (2880x1440) to get smooth texture, since printing with the 960 requires use of a lot of black ink. The 2200 has a "light black" (gray) ink that helps a lot, and in my experience you can get quite good quality even at 720 DPI and seldom need to go above 1440x720 DPI. There's a big performance difference right there! The problem with the 2200 is that Gimp-Print 4.2 doesn't drive it well, since the internal architecture doesn't cope very well with the fact that the gray (and photo black) inks aren't neutral. If you really can't switch to Gimp-Print 5.0 yet, the 2200 isn't a good choice; I'd recommend the R200 or the like. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
"Robert" == Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> writes:
Robert, thank you for your *very* informative post! Robert> For Linux use, I would recommend the 2200 over the 960 hands Robert> down, if you can use Gimp-Print 5.0 (which is currently in Robert> beta). I have both of them. I consider myself qualified on Robert> this subject, as the Gimp-Print project lead. I'm very happy to use cutting edge software, I run a very upto date Debian setup. Robert> These printers are not the same; the 2200 uses UltraChrome Robert> inks (which are pigment-based) while the 960 uses conventional Robert> dye-based inks. Somewhat surprisingly, the 2200 has a wider Robert> gamut than the 960 (usually pigment inks have narrow gamut). Robert> However, it's not hard to get a good grayscale out of that Robert> printer. What other printers use these UltraChrome inks as well, which are (possibly) cheaper than the 2200? I don't think I need the bigger size, I'm mostly looking for a dedicated photo printer for home use, we already have the B&W laser for generic printing. I'm not even planning on using this new printer for color text prints. Robert> The 960, despite its tiny smallest drop size of 2 pl (vs. 4 pl Robert> for the 2200) does not produce as good output in my opinion. Robert> You really need to use the highest resolution (2880x1440) to Robert> get smooth texture, since printing with the 960 requires use Robert> of a lot of black ink. The 2200 has a "light black" (gray) Robert> ink that helps a lot, and in my experience you can get quite Robert> good quality even at 720 DPI and seldom need to go above Robert> 1440x720 DPI. There's a big performance difference right Robert> there! Sounds like a big difference in costs too, since you'll be using less ink. How important is the paper? Everything I've been reading says that using the Epson paper is really the only way to go. Robert> The problem with the 2200 is that Gimp-Print 4.2 doesn't drive it Robert> well, since the internal architecture doesn't cope very well with the Robert> fact that the gray (and photo black) inks aren't neutral. If you Robert> really can't switch to Gimp-Print 5.0 yet, the 2200 isn't a good Robert> choice; I'd recommend the R200 or the like. How about the R800? Is that the least expensive of the printers with the UltraChrome inks? Thanks for your comments, a big help! John
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:16:19 -0400 From: "John Stoffel" <stoffel@lucent.com>
"Robert" == Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> writes:
Robert, thank you for your *very* informative post! Robert> For Linux use, I would recommend the 2200 over the 960 hands Robert> down, if you can use Gimp-Print 5.0 (which is currently in Robert> beta). I have both of them. I consider myself qualified on Robert> this subject, as the Gimp-Print project lead. I'm very happy to use cutting edge software, I run a very upto date Debian setup. You'll have to build from source; the Debian packaging for 5.0 beta is currently broken. Robert> These printers are not the same; the 2200 uses UltraChrome Robert> inks (which are pigment-based) while the 960 uses Robert> conventional dye-based inks. Somewhat surprisingly, the Robert> 2200 has a wider gamut than the 960 (usually pigment inks Robert> have narrow gamut). However, it's not hard to get a good Robert> grayscale out of that printer. What other printers use these UltraChrome inks as well, which are (possibly) cheaper than the 2200? I don't think I need the bigger size, I'm mostly looking for a dedicated photo printer for home use, we already have the B&W laser for generic printing. I'm not even planning on using this new printer for color text prints. The only one that's cheaper is the R800, but that's currently marginally supported at best. In particular, it only operates in CMYK mode right now, and it's going to take me a while to get the red and blue inks (and gloss optimizer) working correctly. Robert> The 960, despite its tiny smallest drop size of 2 pl (vs. 4 pl Robert> for the 2200) does not produce as good output in my opinion. Robert> You really need to use the highest resolution (2880x1440) to Robert> get smooth texture, since printing with the 960 requires use Robert> of a lot of black ink. The 2200 has a "light black" (gray) Robert> ink that helps a lot, and in my experience you can get quite Robert> good quality even at 720 DPI and seldom need to go above Robert> 1440x720 DPI. There's a big performance difference right Robert> there! Sounds like a big difference in costs too, since you'll be using less ink. How important is the paper? Everything I've been reading says that using the Epson paper is really the only way to go. You're not using less ink at lower resolution. Paper is very important. I'd suggest the Epson papers, since the inks and papers are designed to work together. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
"Robert" == Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> writes:
Robert> The only one that's cheaper is the R800, but that's currently Robert> marginally supported at best. In particular, it only operates Robert> in CMYK mode right now, and it's going to take me a while to Robert> get the red and blue inks (and gloss optimizer) working Robert> correctly. So it really sounds like the R200 or the R300(M) might be a better choice for me, since I don't want to spend a ton of money here. I know I'll be spending it on the paper/ink no matter what. Or an 960 might still be an ok choice? Robert> You're not using less ink at lower resolution. Paper is very Robert> important. I'd suggest the Epson papers, since the inks and Robert> papers are designed to work together. Thanks for the comments, so sticking with Epson supplies is the way to go here.
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:24:33 -0400 From: "John Stoffel" <stoffel@lucent.com>
"Robert" == Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> writes:
Robert> The only one that's cheaper is the R800, but that's currently Robert> marginally supported at best. In particular, it only operates Robert> in CMYK mode right now, and it's going to take me a while to Robert> get the red and blue inks (and gloss optimizer) working Robert> correctly. So it really sounds like the R200 or the R300(M) might be a better choice for me, since I don't want to spend a ton of money here. I know I'll be spending it on the paper/ink no matter what. Or an 960 might still be an ok choice? Unless you really need the Ultrachrome inks, I'd go with the R200 or R300. They're cheaper than the 960 and better tuned. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
"Robert" == Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu> writes:
Robert> Unless you really need the Ultrachrome inks, I'd go with the Robert> R200 or R300. They're cheaper than the 960 and better tuned. I've gone with an R300, puts out nice output so far, but now to get CUPS to recognize it properly. The docs suck, as does the admin web page thing. Andy, I misplaced the link to your doc on getting CUPS working with USB printers, can you resend it? Thanks, John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 08 September 2004 10:08 am, John Stoffel wrote:
Andy, I misplaced the link to your doc on getting CUPS working with USB printers, can you resend it?
http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/users-guide.pdf See Chapter 3, it might help. Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBP4hZHl0iXDssISsRAkm9AJ4q/6Tva2vQPb2UmHRaSwMkha4ncACggC58 fPIqVBUJCwwDesxAuFqL/R4= =2qj1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thanks for the quick reply Andy, but I managed to figure it out last night. Background, I've got a Debian system which is pretty aggressively updated with apt. Mostly unstable, with some testing thrown in. CUPs has been working just fine for ages now, since I've got an HP LaserJet 4 on the network that I share with my wife. But this time I couldn't get the CUPs web GUI to even show or accept any URI's on the form of /dev/usb/lp0, which is where the printer shows up under udev. Well, it turned out that half of the backends in /usr/lib/cups/backend/ weren't executable, even though they were there. So I just did a chomd +x /usr/lib/cups/backend/* /etc/init.d/cupsys restart and went back to http://localhost:631/admin and I was able to add the printer without any problems. What a pain! I had also deinstalled and re-installed various versions of cups as well, but obviously there's a problem with the debian setup of version 1.1.20final+rc1-5 which is what I have installed. So at this point I've got my R300 hooked up and working, now to play with GIMP for printing out photos. And boy, is it slow on my system, which is only a PIII Xeon 550mhz dual CPU box. Using the highest resolution of the printer, and the highest resolution picture from my camera, I ended up printing 85mb of data for a 4x6 snapshot. Ouch! John
I just wanted to follow up about some issues I had with my new Epson R300 photo printer. Basically, each time I updated my debian systems (apt-get update) the printer would stop working. Something kept chaning the permissions of the /usr/lib/cups/backend/usb driver. After enough time fighting it, I finally found out that I needed to do a: dpkg-reconfigure cupsys to tell it to enable USB printer drivers. End of problem. It was a pain to figure out since I originally only had a network printer, so didn't even think of enabling USB printing. Silly me. Every day (or so) I find out new things about debian. Some good, some bad. My newest thing is NLE (Non-Linear Editing) of video. Kino is so-so, cinelerra crashes instantly all the time. Might try main-actor, but not sure I want to spend the money when I can just use my wife's machine and Windows software to edit. Sure, I should probably thing about a Mac OS X.x something box with their movie editing software.
participants (4)
-
Andy Stewart -
John Stoffel -
Peter Gutowski -
Robert L Krawitz