Hi...my first post! I have been lurking a while and have found a lot of inspiration here...you are one huge bunch of awesome photographers!

I am wanting to purchase a photo printer that will print archival quality images. It doesn't have to go to A3, A4 is fine. Anyone know of a good one?

I am using a Canon 20d if that makes any difference.

The Epson R800 will do just that - 8x10 images with the Ultrachrome inkset with a Gloss Optimizer from Epson. Or an Epson 2200. Both use pigmented inks rather than dyes, and should last on good quality Epson paper more than 100 years.

There is a review of the R800 here - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...son-r800.shtml

Thanks for that review Pathfinder, it was a good read.
I had been told today by the guys at our computer shop that Canon was the way to go, but wanted to get opinions from non biased sources!

If you want to examine controlled lab test results for archival printers, and also learn how you can help or hurt the longevity of your prints, a good site to visit is this one.

Canon printers are generally faster, more inexpensive, and display more vivid colors than the pigment based Ultrachrome inks. And many shooters strongly prefer the Canon printers for these reasons. The i9900 and the i960 get rave reviews.

Pigment based inks are generally felt to be slightly more archival.

I am a biased source, as I use an Epson 2200 and an Epson 4000 for my own images.

I chose to go with the Ultrachrome inks from Epson as I had previously used HP photo printers and the pictures would fade noticeably, stored in a drawer in an air-conditioned room, in less than 4 months. Archival length of color fastness was more important to me than saving a little money for a dye based system. Not everyone would make that same choice, though. If I were not so adamant about longevity, I would probably pursue a Canon printer.

As per the previous post - Wilhelm Research is the final authority on the archival qualities of various ink-paper combinations.

Also - you may feel you don't need anything bigger than 8x10, but 11x19 inch sharp, grainless images can be things of real beauty. You might find you like the bigger printers after all. Like the Epson R1800?? Or the Canon 19900??

Thanks colourbox.......great site! A bit hard to navigate, but worth the time for sure! Not sure which I am going to choose now...Am very tempted to go big. I agree there is nothing like a large image to take the breath away

I like bigger prints too, that's why I got an Epson 2200 which I love. It taught me that you get what you pay for, at least with the Epsons. I have cheaper Epsons that are finicky. While a bit more expensive, the 2200 just runs and runs and does not give me trouble. However, it is no longer current. If I was buying today, I'd buy the 2400, because the 2400 prints far better than the 2200 on glossy paper, and neutral black-and-white prints are much easier to make.

Originally Posted by pathfinder Canon printers are generally faster, more inexpensive, and display more vivid colors than the pigment based Ultrachrome inks. And many shooters strongly prefer the Canon printers for these reasons. The i9900 and the i960 get rave reviews. Pigment based inks are generally felt to be slightly more archival. I am a biased source, as I use an Epson 2200 and an Epson 4000 for my own images. I chose to go with the Ultrachrome inks from Epson as I had previously used HP photo printers and the pictures would fade noticeably, stored in a drawer in an air-conditioned room, in less than 4 months. Archival length of color fastness was more important to me than saving a little money for a dye based system. Not everyone would make that same choice, though. If I were not so adamant about longevity, I would probably pursue a Canon printer. As per the previous post - Wilhelm Research is the final authority on the archival qualities of various ink-paper combinations. Also - you may feel you don't need anything bigger than 8x10, but 11x19 inch sharp, grainless images can be things of real beauty. You might find you like the bigger printers after all. Like the Epson R1800?? Or the Canon 19900??

Just to muddy the waters a little more. I contacted Canon, and they are rating the i9900 and photo paper pro at 25 years. I tried to find the i9900 on Wilhelm Research but have nor succeeded.

I do how ever have several prints that I printed two years ago on a i850 and they don't show any degradation al all.

Although it's pretty well agreed that a pigment based ink will out last a dye based ink the various methods, and ratings only apply to the specific ink, paper combination tested. True understanding, and accurate real world comparisons between the longevity claims would chalange Steven Hawlkins.

Sam