Hi Terry, thank you for another wonderful review.

Were you able to form an opinion on the R1900's black & white printing ability? How does the overall image quality (colour and b&w compare with Epson's 3800 printer which uses the K3 ink sets? I doubt that I would do much A2 printing but the larger ink cartridges in the 3800 does make the initial extra expense tempting.

I'm still looking forward to the day that Canon provides a Pixma Pro 9500 for you to trial - that should round off all comparisons nicely (until an update for the Epson R2400 arrives!).

Thanks again. Tony.

Tony: The B&W output from the R1900 is very good. I made some A3+ monochrome prints on glossy paper and was very pleased with the results.

I have tried the Canon Pixma Pro 9500 and was unimpressed. Print times are slower than you could imagine -- 14 minutes for a single print. Bronzing was appalling -- Canon doesn't have anything like Epson's Gloss Optimiser. Overall the printer was so bad that I wondered if there was something I was doing wrong, but no one at Canon could enlighten me. I decided not to review it because I couldn't think of a single positive thing to say about it.

The HP pigment ink pro printer is much much better. In some ways it beats the Epsons. I was surprised. If it's B and W you want then no one does it as well as HP.

Canon's dye printers using their Chromalife 100 inks are outstanding. All things considered I prefer a good dye printer to a pigment because of the higher resolution, higher gloss and better colours. I know all about the fabled longevity of pigment prints and I understand why professionals use them -- after all, they don't want disgruntled customers complaining about faded prints that have been left hanging unrpotected in bright sunlight. But for mere mortals I am unconvinced by the pigment case.

Both Canon and Epson make fabulous dye ink printers in A3+ size with very stable inks.

TL

Wow, that is certainly not the response I expected. I need to re-think my obsession with pigment. Perhaps I should look at the Epson 1400 or the Canon Pro 9000 given its reported b&w capabilities. The Canon 6700D suddenly seems an absolute bargain at about $280.

A slightly off topic question for you Terry, I currently take photos in raw format using sRGB, should I be using ADOBE RGB given I plan to print from photoshop in the future?

Tony.

Tony:

Interesting question about sRGB v AdobeRGB. I am planning on writing an article about printing touching on that subject.

Derek Mobbs, who is the world's greatest living expert on printing from Photoshop at epson.com.au says to use AdobeRGB. On his advice I have set my camera to that colour space. To tell the truth I'm not sure what difference it is making, except that images are a little flatter straight from the camera. That suits me fine because I prefer a low contrast original in which there is more detail in shadows and highlights. I can adjust the contrast in PS.

Derek's printer guide is here:
ftp://ftp.epson.com.au/pub/epson/TechTips/RGB%20CS2%20Windows%20Workflow.pdf

So my work practice is shoot RAW, AdobeRGB workspace and print from Photoshop.

The Canon Pixma 9000 is a stunning printer. It would be my choice. I speak as an owner of an i9950 which is excellent, except that it doesn't use the long life inks.

TL

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the interesting review. I am an amateur photographer, just getting into digital photography. I was about to buy an Epson R1800 when I saw the R1900 announced, and decided to hold off. The R1900 sounds great, based on your review and others I've read. However, I am intrigued by your references to the "HP pigment ink pro printer" and "Canon and Epson's fabulous dye ink printers". Should I hold off longer on the R1900 and investigate these other printers? Specifically, could you give us actual model numbers? Would you have a preference among all the printers you mention?

My situation: I'm a serious amateur, willing to spend up to $1500, but cheaper is better. Will print both B&W and colour, and A3 size would be required.

Thanks and regards, Peter.

Peter:

You could look at

HEWLETT PACKARD Photosmart ProB9180 - excellent pigment printer, very BIG!
Canon Pixma Pro9000 $1100 -- the best dye printer, more economical to run, finer resolution
Epson Photo Stylus R1900 or R2400 -- the R2400 is the choice of professionals everywhere. Pigment. Superb. Expensive to run.

The HP and the Epson have RRPs of $1500. The Canon's is $1100. And the Epson R1900 is about $1100.

TL

Hi Terry, Derek here(you know the world greatest living expert: I think that is a bit of a stretch, but not to much, lol). Just to clarify the Adobe 1998 comment about setting it on the camera. This only comes into play when you are shooting JPEG as the RAW files are colour space independent, the raw converter is responsible for setting this.
If you follow the colour managed workflow on the Epson website this will guide you to producing the best performance form the printer, which will also produce excellent B&W prints.

hi im about to perchace the R1900 and would like to know your thoughts on continious ink system thanks john

John: I had a continuous inking system on an A3+ Canon printer. The inks faded within days of printing. The colours were atrocious. And in the end the inks destroyed the print heads.

The system cost hundreds of dollars, didn't produce one acceptable, durable print, and has long since been disposed of via the indestructible rubbish collection.

Come to think of it, "rubbish" is a good generic name for CIS.

And with an Epson fitting such a thing voids your warranty.

I know that genuine inks and paper are expensive. Outrageously so. But they work! With Epson inks in an R1900, using Epson paper, you will produce gorgeous prints that will last forever. Why compromise?

TL