Merlin’s weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin. We talk about creativity, independence, and making things you love.
Merlin’s weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin. We talk about creativity, independence, and making things you love.
”What’s 43 Folders?”
43Folders.com is Merlin Mann’s website about finding the time and attention to do your best creative work.
What do YOU use for printing on 3x5?
onepinktee | Mar 12 2006
I guess the subject says it all. :) I wouldn't mind having a small printer that just printed 3x5 cards and photos, but I also could use a new full-size printer for home. Tell me what works for you... 13 Comments
POSTED IN:
I've been looking closely at...Submitted by emory on March 12, 2006 - 7:19pm.
onepinktee wrote:
I've been looking closely at Epson printers because of their photo quality (they get high marks for archival quality). Do you know the pound weight of Hammermill stock you are using? I would also be printing on cardstock from time to time (I scrapbook, so cardstock is a tool of the trade) -- have you had problems with cardstock? I'm using 67 lb. coverstock. The person in the aisle recommended I try that first because some printers don't like feeding cardstock. In my head I thought about it a bit and figured it was worth a shot with this first because the thickest thing I had ever put into my printer was matte heavyweight epson photo paper. So it seemed like a reasonable word of warning. I may try something heavier just because I want heavy cards. Okay -- a lot of people will tell you that HP makes a mean photo printer these days. I'll never know. I have had HP photo printers and they were all junk. I've used some prosumer Epson printers like the 2000P and such and have been blown away. If you use the archival inks you'll make prints that should outlast B&W prints. Those last like, what, 300 years? The Stylus Photo RX500 is cheap. You can do delicious prints. They're not archival but they're darn good. There may well be after-market archival cartridges for this thing. I seem to recall seeing them for sale at some point. I can't afford to print archival photos en masse anyway and honestly I don't PRINT a lot of photos and figure I have the originals and can reprint at any time with cheaper, more readily available archival inks in 10 years and the prints will still be looking as great as they do today anyway. What I love about the Epson is that each ink has its own cartridge. This is a huge advantage. I also love that the RX500 (and the entire RX line, really) can print photos directly off flash and has an integrated flash reader that mounts the flash card right on the desktop of my Mac. So no more carrying/using readers since its all right there. Mine reads SD, XD, MS, SD, MMC, RS-MMC, CF. I'm covered. My Nikons are all compact flash and my mobile phones are Memory Stick Duo Pro, MMC, or RS-MMC. The scanner on mine is awesome. Its fast, and came with a negative scanner attachment. This has been used to pull a lot of really old photos I had when I was a kid in high school with mom's camera. I couldn't buy good film and the negs have been abused over the years -- never-the-less it can resurrect even my piss-poor photographs years later: While I love the all-in-one wonder that is the RX- line from Epson, that may come in really handy for your scrap-booking projects, if you want a bulletproof photo printer that makes prints that last "reasonably forever" you should look at the 2200, the latest version of the 2000P: 2200 from Epson at Epson.com. » POSTED IN:
|
|
EXPLORE 43Folders | THE GOOD STUFF |