25 of 27 people found the following review helpful
A working lump,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Epson Stylus Photo R3000 A3+ Colour Inkjet Printer (Personal Computers)
I sell prints of my artwork but when my Epson R200 died I decided to try another make of printer - and was very disappointed with the quality of prints, particularly on Bockingford ink-jet paper. After reading many reviews I decided to invest in an Epson A3 printer which produces high quality prints with light-fast pigment inks. I am very pleased I did. The prints are excellent. The machine does just exactly what i want it to. I have to admit it is not an object of beauty and is a bit slow to rev up before printing but as the original artwork took a considerable amount of time to produce - it is of little significance. I like the fact that it will take thicker paper, the R 200 had to have card fed through. I use the machine for high quality printing only, my all singing all dancing printer of another make is OK for everything else, and as it takes cheap compatible ink is relatively economical in comparison.
Tracked by 4 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 20 May 2012 00:35:00 BDT
Hi Kelly. Hope you dont mind my response but I am in exactly the same position - wanting to buy a printer which I can use to produce my own prints. I have had a few done professionally, which are fine - but expensive when you take the proofing into account. This got me to thinking that getting my own kit maybe the cheaper option. So finding your review is brilliant. Can I ask what thickness of paper you use? And how thick will it go up to? Also, excuse my cheek, but what do you do to capture your images - I hear the best method is an A3 flatbed scanner but they are out of my price range I think and am hoping I can get away with using a DSLR camera which I have.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 20:01:22 BDT
I've only had the printer couple of months so I haven't tried many different papers. So far I've used Bockingford watercolour ink-jet paper which is 190g (90lb)- not thick and Jessops matt heavy weight inkjet paper at 230gsm. These work very well. Thee is a whole range of options in the drop-down menu in the print settings and having read many reviews about the printer, understand that it will accept quite thick paper.
I photograph most of my work using a compact cannon camera and get excellent results but I've been doing this for some time and tend to take the photographs in daylight under a window when there is no direct sunlight. I used to use a flatbed scanner but it was A4 so many images had to be scanned in 2 bits then stitched together in photoshop. Photographs are easier. I do adjust the prints either using iPhoto, photoshop or pixel mater. I recently sold a print of a silk painting using the Jessop's paper. It looked very like the real thing, some viewers saying they thought it was silk - not a print.
Hope this helps.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 23:25:22 BDT
Thanks for all that...it sounds just the ticket. Especially as you prefer using a camera and can get good results. I dont think mine are too bad so far but know they could be better. Probably need a tripod for better stability. I do the same and try to take them in daylight though I have got daylight bulbs too where I paint. I have just got Photoshop Elements 10 which also looks like it could be a saving grace (though quite complex!) I had heard of stitching the images together from an A4 scanner but it does sound a bit onerous. I had my professional prints done on Somerset Velvet which I think was around the same as the Jessops paper you mentioned. The only thing I have heard with Epson is that the cartridges can be expensive and maybe not that long lasting. How have you found them so far? Though I guess any printer like this is not going to be that cheap to run!
In reply to an earlier post on 23 May 2012 18:47:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 May 2012 18:50:11 BDT
Apparently A3 size prints on very good quality paper work out at about £5.50 a print, even with the cost of framing these can be sold at a reasonable price and still make a profit. A full set of inks from Amazon costs about £180 but individual inks can be bought separately.
I use the Epson 3000 for art prints only- no general printing.
I don't use a tripod for the photographs - why complicate life if you do 't need to ? I pit the paintings on the floor or a window- sill and photograph crom above
Good luck with yours
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 23:09:20 BDT
Thanks for your help Kelly. Good luck to you too...sorry a bit delayed but just been on my hols
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Sep 2012 20:58:10 BDT
Mr. P. R. Allen says:
wow "Apparently A3 size prints on very good quality paper work out at about £5.50 a print" seems kinda expensive... how much od that is ink and how much paper?
In reply to an earlier post on 1 Oct 2012 01:51:53 BDT
I found this costing on a site dealing with in depth reviews, I haven't worked out the exact costs using my printer as I'm still on the first lot of inks that came with the printer. From other reviews I gather the first ink batch is less economical because of initial cleaning and setting up. The A3 art paper I use is about £2 a sheet so based on that, the ink would be over £3 a go.
Posted on 14 Nov 2012 16:19:26 GMT
I too am looking to buy a printer for fine art prints. I have used a simple office ink jet and somerset enhanced velvet (cotton) paper (which I spray with Hahnemuhle print spray to increase fade resistance) and that is fine for some images but others require a wider colour and intensity range. I hope that an 8 or 9 ink tank would do sufficiently better that all of my images could be adequately printed. My paintings are not particularly finely colour and intensity nuanced. The local art printer uses a 13 ink printer and images of really delicate and nuanced watercolours are indistinguishable from the originals using the mark one eyeball. I suspect it is overkill. The buyer is most unlikely to set original and print side by side - and in any case it is the print alone that has to look right. I also suspect that if properly set up, I would not be able to distinguish original from print on a 9-ink system (especially under glass). How well do you find the 9 ink system copes with nuanced colour and intensity?
Have you a better estimate of ink usage yet?
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2012 22:44:16 GMT
An artist friend has his prints done professionally using pigment inks for £7 a print. if you can do the same I reckon it isn't worth investing in a printer. I'm still using the original inks in my printer as I use it only when I want high quality, the rest of the time I use a cannon printer with cheap inks. I haven't done any exact costing however as a rough estimate I reckon I'm averaging £5 a print on the epson. The pigment inks are guaranteed lightfast for 200years so no need to spray. I'm not looking for exact copies of my original paintings, some prints sometimes look better but I do want to produce something of quality to sell. Hope this helps to answer your question.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2014 17:23:06 BDT
Whatever you say, a tripod supported camera (assuming a good quality tripod) is much more steady than a person on two legs camera, if you get my meaning. Camera shake is going to be a problem with hand held cameras at relatively slow shutter speeds (less than 1/250th sec.), and camera shake results in blurring in the photo; you may have to examine it reasonably closely to see the blur, but it will be there! However if you are using flash, then it will provide that fast exposure, and blur will only occur if the aperture is open wide & long enough to allow enough light during the camera's shutter opening (which duration may be different than the flash duration). Even with Image Stabiliser (Canon) or Vibration Reduction (Nikon) lenses, effectively the same thing, there is still the risk of blur. Even a monopod can be better than nothing - Monopod + Person's two legs = three legs!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›