Best printer for astrophoto's?

[bloodhound31]

I would like to start printing my astrophoto's.

Can anyone reccommend the best printer, what it costs, how expensive are refils, ink vs laser, where to get it, best value for money etc.

I would like to print up to A3 in size.

Baz.

[rogerg]

I would recommend having them printed at a local pro photo lab instead (if you have a local one). Here in Perth the place I use, an A3 size works out about $10. Colour reproduction is perfect and quality is the great (pro, archival, etc). I'm not sure any home printer can compare in price when you add up cost of printer, ink/toner, paper.

But. .. yeah, sometimes it's nice to just print stuff at home whenever you want. :)

[leon]

Baz, I have recently purchased a iX 4000 Canon printer, to do just what you have said, and it is fantastic.

It will do borderless up to A3, and is reasonably economic to run, the colours are spot on, and it only needs 3 individual colour cartridges, and 1 black.

They cost about 25.00 each, but last a good lenght of time, if one is not wasteful of coarse.

I usually do a very small test print, say about 6x4 before i let it rip at A3, so that I know all is well with the colour and stuff.

The Canon iX 4000, is not cheap and cost me $600.00, but it is well worth it.

You can order one of these from any Camera House outlet, of direct from the Canon site.

Hope this helps a bit.

Leon :thumbsup:

Ps, when it comes to laser printers, "I Know Nothing" :lol:

[bloodhound31]

Thanks Roger and Leon.

Anyone got a word on laser printers for astrophoto's?

[acropolite]

Baz, I use an Epson R1800, A3+ printing with pigment (paint rather then dye) based inks. The results are impressive, colour fastness is 70+ years, I haven't kept tabs but I suspect they're a little on the expensive side to run.

The R1800 has been superceded by the R1900 and R2800. Like Leon said they're not cheap, expect to pay over $1000. To get the best results you also need something to calibrate your monitor.

[dpastern]

+1. Epson for absolute quality imho. The R1900 is quite nice, and so is the R2880 too, I was considering something even larger myself (taking sheet rolls) but since I've lost interest in photography, I can't justify the cost now.

Dave

[Chippy]

Another one for the Epsons. The R1410 is an absolute bargain if you want cheap A3+. The quality is still very good and 1/2 the price of an R1900. The 1900 is even better of course :)

[mdgodf]

Laser printers aren't particularly good for photos (astro or other) especially if you are concnerned about cost. A laser that would print photos as well as an inkjet is very expensive. This article from PCuser talks about it a bit http://www.pcuser.com.au/pcuser/hs2.nsf/lookup+1/4B9F40C903019B37CA256E8E0014ADCF

A good place to get information and materials for printing at home is http://www.imagescience.com.au/

But unless you want the fun and satisfaction of making a good print at home (I think it's worth while), which will require some effort and expense, printing at a local photo lab would be better.

[ian]

don't know if this is helpful, nor do i know if they do foreign orders but these guys are getting some very good press. the price seems pretty good and you upload your images via their website, the prints returned in the post. i could not see it on their website but i have read they also transfer images to ceramic tiles. maybe a nice accent to every astronomers bathroom :)


http://www.deepskyprinting.com

[Benny L]

You can get 13in rolls for smaller printers like EPSON's R2400 or 2880 :)

I have an EPSON 7800 at the moment which does wonderful prints, before that I had the 2400 which was just as good except the ink per mL was significantly more expensive and, well 13in rolls get too small after a while :lol:

I would suggest if you had the cash to look at the EPSON 3800? Prints on 17in rolls and takes 80mL cartridges so in the long run its going to be cheaper if you do alot of printing yourself rather than taking them to a lab.

[dpastern]

Yup Ben, you are correct. I couldn't remember if the 2400 took rolls or not. I had considered the 3800 at one stage, but there's a Canon printer I was also considering (IPF 5000), which seems better quality and better value too (120ml buckets if memory serves me correct). This has now been replaced from memory, so I'm not too sure how the current range models compete. Epson is better as a general rule, except for they don't allow matte and gloss black in the damn printer at the same time...grr...

Dave

[Benny L]

haha! yea they've only just started doing the matt & photo blacks in the 7900/9900 printers :shrug:

[dpastern]

Might investigate, but by the time I commit to an expensive printer, it'll prolly be a few years. Lost all interest in photography (thanks Canon) and can't afford to switch (or justify) to Nikon. Since I'm not really doing much photography anymore, can't really justify huge expenses on printers, more efficient for me to go to a local lab at the moment.

Dave