A very fast photo printer that's consistent.
Written: Jun 14 '02 (Updated Jun 14 '02)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Paper Handling: |
|
|
|
Pros: Good print quality, consistent output, FAST, FAST, FAST.
Cons: Poorly stocked supplies, USB only, banding and visible dots on very close inspection.
The Bottom Line: Very good print quality and fast print speed make this printer a winner. However, the lack of paper options and lack of borderless printing above 8.5x11 make the Epson viable.
|
|
|
| kweckstrom's Full Review: Canon S9000 InkJet Photo Printer |
I've owned the Epson Stylus Photo 1280 for over a year now. For the most part, i've been happy with the results. Recently, I had purchased the S9000 from Dell. Dell apparently had a pricing mistake and had the printer listed for $309 shipped. I couldn't pass that up.
At first, I had a hard time getting good prints out of the S9000. They prints had a "milky" caste to them, and the colors were all wrong compared to comparable settings on my Epson. I've done an in-depth analysis of the S9000, at least relatively so.
Color Issues:
There's some ICM profiles available for Canon and Epson papers for use with the S9000. I've scrapped the ICM profiles I downloaded. They didn't help me at all even after seriously trying. They made a bad problem worse, but i'm sure it's not the fault of the author. It's probably just my particular workflow. I know these ICM profiles have helped people a great deal, they just weren't applicable to me.
What I did do was recalibrate everything in Photoshop and got my color issues out of the way on a different machine (2 actually, I threw my laptop into the fray). I didn't want to mess up my other machine that was perfectly calibrated for the 1280. After some tweaking and enabling ICM, I can now get perfect color screen-to-print.
In the end what helped me was starting from scratch on a new machine that I could work with exclusively with this printer from the get-go, getting my monitor in sync with my prints in photoshop without the Epson being involved. Heck, on my notebook using the LCD, I didn't to do much calibration at all, since LCD's are extremely tough to profile. Luckily it was close enough to use.
Milky Printouts:
This is the factor that contributed the MOST to my dissatisfaction with the Canon at first. The milky tone of the Canon made me think that the color on this printer was just out of whack.
It seems that nearly ALL prints coming out of the printer have milky colors right off the bat. 100%, no doubt about it, you CANNOT judge accurate color on the S9000 until AFTER the prints have dried thoroughly. They will all look milky during their drying time. This is why it was so hard for me to judge color on this printer. I simply wasn't waiting long enough for proper drying time, as this isn't a factor on the Epson for whatever reason (probably because the 1280 is slower than a nudist climbing a barbed-wire fence).
After the prints dry thoroughly, the color "settles in" to where they should be, and the milkyness disappears. In my case, completely.
Banding:
Yep. It's there. The Epson is better at "hiding" it TO A DEGREE. After closely inspecting same prints from both using the best paper possible for each printer, I can say that both the epson and canon have banding. It's just a bit more visible on some prints the S9000. It's also been said that the banding is a lot more visible when viewing pictures under bright lighting. I agree there as well. Under normal indoor ambient lighting, it's hard to see the banding without looking VERY closely at the photo (6-12 inches from the page). However, this is very pronounced on the 1280 as well in some areas.
On the 1280, image seem more "contrasty' at lack of a better term. This contrast along with some deeper and darker overall colors seem to "distract" the eye from seeing the banding. I wish I could describe this better, but I can't. After really letting my prints settle on the Canon, i can honestly say that the Canon seems a bit more seem more consistent overall. The Epson seems to have wide variations in dot patterns when comparing light and dark areas in prints, where the Canon seems to favor a more consistently "tight" pattern overall.
Overall, I have to give the Canon the edge here.
Visible dots:
Yep, there as well. Also as has been said before, it's very visible in light fleshtones, reminiscent of the static on a non-receptive TV station for me, just much finer. It's faint, the dot pattern is tight, but it IS there. It may or may not be a problem for most, but to my eyes it is in fact there. The effect DOES seem to diminish a bit after a good hour of drying time (didn't scientifically time it). Also, the Photo Paper Pro seems to "hide" the visibile dots in bokeh areas thanks to the extreme glossyness of the paper, and the fact that it's supposed to be a non-distracting bokeh (the intentionally out of focus area of a photograph) :)
Also, the dot patterns on the Canon seem far more consistent than on the Epson, just as I have said in the banding section. So, is this better or worse? It depends on the print to a certain degree.
Fleshtones in general seem to show more of the "speckling dot patterns" on the Canon. Again, after a good shot of drying time, the color dries and "settles" as several people have mentioned. While I can still see it, it isn't anywhere near as distracting after the print has had time to appropriately dry.
On the epson, light fleshtones are excellent. However, darker areas (dark eyebrows, shadows under chins, etc), there's a VERY distracting dot pattern on Professional Glossy Photo Paper. I notice this outright. So, which is better? Man, I hate to admit it, but I prefer the canon here as well, since while there's still dot patterns, they're far more predictable overall. Far more consistent than the Epson. For me, that means less guesswork when printing instead of wondering if the Epson is going to kill off a shot because I couldn't get a reflector in time :)
Differences in Paper
What I did was take some VERY challenging photos from my collection (some that were grievously underexposed thanks to poor shooting conditions) and tried them on Epson's 4x6 borderless glossy for the epson, and Photo Paper Pro for the Canon.
On the epson, these prints show very noticable bronzing when viewed at an angle. The Epson 4x6 paper has serious issues here from what i've seen. I tend to not use it often, since the borderless aspect of the Epson is still abysmal because of its insanely slow print speed, and since the shot HAS to be bright and properly exposed. On the canon (again, after sufficient drying time), there's no bronzing, the image is well adjusted (though still flawed thanks to my underexposed shots), and overall more pleasing even when you consider the shot was poor to begin with.
So, when it comes to the 4x6 borderless paper from Epson and Canon, when the image is bright and properly exposed, the Epson and Canon are equally good. But when there's a challenging photo, the story changes. When the photo is bad, the Epson shows bronzing, dot patterns, flat and overly dark skin tones, and generally kills the shot almost completely. The canon seems to have an easier time reproducing these "bad" shots without ruining them. If you have an epson, and you've noticed this on their 4x6 paper, i'd really like to hear from you.
All this may be true on bigger paper sized, but I only really tested on the 4x6 media as I didn't have any 8.5x11 Paper Photo Pro on hand.
My biggest gripe with the Canon is the lack of options with paper sizes in the Photo Paper Pro department. While epson has standard sizes out there for people who really don't want to cut, Canon limits you to 3 sizes of PPP. Also, the epson allows you to print borderlessly on 13x19 media, with no such option on the Canon. I miss this. Maybe someday canon will work in borderless 11x14 or 11x17? I hope so.
Visible scratches on Photo Paper Pro:
The paper is very prone to scratching as people have mentioned. I notice the scratching in the direction of the paper path, though I notice it more at the trailing edge of the print or the top edge (don't recall which, but it's one of them). Again, it's a "viewed on an angle" thing. I don't notice viewing a shot head-on.
Also, when stacking photos and cycling through them like most people do, it leads to more fine scratches. While I don't see these without doing a close inspection, it leads to questions about the I longevity of the print. Too many scratches might ruin it, but only time will tell. Anyone else have experiences with this? Either way, this isn't anywhere nearly as bad as I make it out to be. If you want to see for yourself, get yourself a pack of this paper before you buy the printer.
Bottom Line:
It seems that the Canon just takes a different approach in things. While the Epson shows off continuous tones for light fleshtones, it tends to destroy the shadows with dots and banding. A viewer might be distracted by the excellent fleshtones on the epson, and simply not notice the darker areas (as was the case with me). In Canon's case, they decided to go with more overall consistency. Yes, there's some banding and some visible dots. While both printers have banding and dots, the Canon seems to make this more predictable, and relying a bit more on the paper's glossyness to hide it (at least it seems that way to me).
The speed of the Canon simply cannot be ignored. This printer is FAST, FAST, FAST, and the epson simply can't compete with the 1280. This may change with the 2200, who knows.
For now, the Canon stays. I might have to deal with some extra drying time to get acceptable prints and proper color, and i'm giving up borderless 13x19, Epson's flexible paper options, and easy network connectivity (USB only on the canon... Ick), but the speed and consistency of the canon mean it's a keeper.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 309
Operating System: Windows
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
kweckstrom
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Karl Weckstrom
Location: Little Ferry, NJ
Reviews written: 100
Trusted by: 99 members
About Me:
Voted "Most Likely to be Photographed as a Bigfoot Sighting" by his senior class.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.