Printers

Ira Solomon wrote:

I’m going to buy a new printer soon. SInce all you folks are serious about your work I’d be interested in your recommendations. I currently use an Epson 1280. I am thinking about the Epson R1800. The R2400 is clearly better for B&W, but I’m more interested in color. I do mostly matte printing.
I’m really not too familiar with the HP and Canon lines. Street price needs to be under $1000.

Thanks.

Ira Solomon

I have and love the Epson R800. It’s the 8.5" version of the R1800. I would highly recommend it. The color, smoothness, and longevity are wonderful. You should love its prints.

One of it’s strong points it the Gloss Optimizer to almost completely eliminate bronzing. This makes very smooth, even pictures. However, that doesn’t work on matte papers. Another advantage is that it has two blacks in it at all times. One is Photo Black that prints on glossy papers. Matte Black is used on matte papers and gives very rich, dark blacks.

I am absolutely thrilled with the B&W printing ability of my R800. I know I’ve read that the new Ultrachrome E3 ink set in the R2400 and up are better for B&W. I’m getting just what I want from my R800. I get no color in my B&W and the bronzing isn’t there either. I think the R2400 would give a better DMAX, but I doubt most people could see it. I’d love to try though.

In fairness, it would be hard to buy a bad top-end printer today. HP and Canon make excellent top-end photo printers too. They all print wonderful looking prints in color and B&W. There are slight variations and strengths. For example, HP has very good archival ability with dye based inks – on the right papers. Some HP printers have been know for great B&W. HP printers are known for more speed than Epson, but not by much. HP ink cartridges are typically more expensive than the others; sometimes a fair bit higher.

Canon is noted as the speed king. They are also noted for not having the same level of longevity that the other two do. They are getting better though.

The real key is to make sure you can get a good profile for the papers you want to use on the printer you buy. With a good profile you will probably get great prints on any of them. Without good profiles you may never be happy with the output.

Clyde

Thanks.
A few years ago, when we got serious about this stuff, I bought a monitor/printer calibration device. It certainly has saved a lot of paper and ink.

Ira Solomon

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Ira Solomon wrote:

I’m going to buy a new printer soon. SInce all you folks are serious about your work I’d be interested in your recommendations. I currently use an Epson 1280. I am thinking about the Epson R1800. The R2400 is clearly better for B&W, but I’m more interested in color. I do mostly matte printing.
I’m really not too familiar with the HP and Canon lines. Street price needs to be under $1000.

Thanks.

Ira Solomon

I have and love the Epson R800. It’s the 8.5" version of the R1800. I would highly recommend it. The color, smoothness, and longevity are wonderful. You should love its prints.

One of it’s strong points it the Gloss Optimizer to almost completely eliminate bronzing. This makes very smooth, even pictures. However, that doesn’t work on matte papers. Another advantage is that it has two blacks in it at all times. One is Photo Black that prints on glossy papers. Matte Black is used on matte papers and gives very rich, dark blacks.

I am absolutely thrilled with the B&W printing ability of my R800. I know I’ve read that the new Ultrachrome E3 ink set in the R2400 and up are better for B&W. I’m getting just what I want from my R800. I get no color in my B&W and the bronzing isn’t there either. I think the R2400 would give a better DMAX, but I doubt most people could see it. I’d love to try though.

In fairness, it would be hard to buy a bad top-end printer today. HP and Canon make excellent top-end photo printers too. They all print wonderful looking prints in color and B&W. There are slight variations and strengths. For example, HP has very good archival ability with dye based inks – on the right papers. Some HP printers have been know for great B&W. HP printers are known for more speed than Epson, but not by much. HP ink cartridges are typically more expensive than the others; sometimes a fair bit higher.

Canon is noted as the speed king. They are also noted for not having the same level of longevity that the other two do. They are getting better though.

The real key is to make sure you can get a good profile for the papers you want to use on the printer you buy. With a good profile you will probably get great prints on any of them. Without good profiles you may never be happy with the output.

Clyde

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:03:49 -0400, Ira Solomon
wrote:

I’m going to buy a new printer soon. SInce all you folks are serious about your work I’d be interested in your recommendations. I currently use an Epson 1280. I am thinking about the Epson R1800. The R2400 is clearly better for B&W, but I’m more interested in color. I do mostly matte printing.
I’m really not too familiar with the HP and Canon lines. Street price needs to be under $1000.

Thanks.

Hi,

I have no doubt that colour repro would be better with the 2400 as well. However, given your price range the 1800 (which is aimed at the consumer market) would be a good choice. I’m assuming you’re looking for A3+ maximum. For A4 I’d suggest the R800, but the only thing is that I#’d do a bit of investigation first as that printer has been out a little while now and at they rate printers get replaced these days I’d wonder if Epson weren’t planning a new model with the new inks.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:22:19 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:03:49 -0400, Ira Solomon
wrote:

I’m going to buy a new printer soon. SInce all you folks are serious about your work I’d be interested in your recommendations. I currently use an Epson 1280. I am thinking about the Epson R1800. The R2400 is clearly better for B&W, but I’m more interested in color. I do mostly matte printing.
I’m really not too familiar with the HP and Canon lines. Street price needs to be under $1000.

Thanks.

Hi,

I have no doubt that colour repro would be better with the 2400 as well. However, given your price range the 1800 (which is aimed at the consumer market) would be a good choice. I’m assuming you’re looking for A3+ maximum. For A4 I’d suggest the R800, but the only thing is that I#’d do a bit of investigation first as that printer has been out a little while now and at they rate printers get replaced these days I’d wonder if Epson weren’t planning a new model with the new inks.
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hi:
Actually the R2400 is about $819 here, and within my price range. I’m dithering because the R1800 has a smaller drop size, and because I’ve seen a few vague comments that its color might be better. There is a review in progress at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ This gentleman does a hell of a review, but he takes his time doing it. He was very high on color for the R1800. I guess I’ll have to wait unitl he finishes the R2400. He is a working photographer, as oposed to the pure techies (of course I shouldn’t complain, as I make my living as a pure techie) who do most reviewing over here.

Thanks

Ira Solomon

Ira Solomon wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:22:19 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:03:49 -0400, Ira Solomon
wrote:

I’m going to buy a new printer soon. SInce all you folks are serious about your work I’d be interested in your recommendations. I currently use an Epson 1280. I am thinking about the Epson R1800. The R2400 is clearly better for B&W, but I’m more interested in color. I do mostly matte printing.
I’m really not too familiar with the HP and Canon lines. Street price needs to be under $1000.

Thanks.

Hi,

I have no doubt that colour repro would be better with the 2400 as well. However, given your price range the 1800 (which is aimed at the consumer market) would be a good choice. I’m assuming you’re looking for A3+ maximum. For A4 I’d suggest the R800, but the only thing is that I#’d do a bit of investigation first as that printer has been out a little while now and at they rate printers get replaced these days I’d wonder if Epson weren’t planning a new model with the new inks.
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hi:
Actually the R2400 is about $819 here, and within my price range. I’m dithering because the R1800 has a smaller drop size, and because I’ve seen a few vague comments that its color might be better. There is a review in progress at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ This gentleman does a hell of a review, but he takes his time doing it. He was very high on color for the R1800. I guess I’ll have to wait unitl he finishes the R2400. He is a working photographer, as oposed to the pure techies (of course I shouldn’t complain, as I make my living as a pure techie) who do most reviewing over here.
Thanks

Ira Solomon

Don’t buy a printer based on the drop size. On my R800 I have to look uncommonly close to see any difference between the top 3 resolutions. More specifically, I can barely tell the difference between 1440 dpi and 2880 dpi. I can not tell any difference between 2880 and 5760 dpi. Well, kind of. I think I see slightly smoother colors and shading, but may be dreaming. In short, count on all of them being able to drop a dot of ink smaller than you need.

Waiting until the next version of anything is out and tested will keep you frozen forever. Besides, you aren’t likely to see that much difference between the 1800 and the 2400 output.

I think the bigger question is what are you going to use it for? The R1800/800 is Epson’s top amateur/semi-pro printer. The 2400 is their bottom pro printer. The big difference isn’t going to be the output (the output has to be great to sell to any market) it is going to be the level of construction, duty cycle, and reliability. A pro printer has be able to print a lot more pages and do it faster without breaking down. Epson (and HP – Canon) have to build their pro level printers to take a bigger beating.

So, if you are a pro who prints a ton of pictures, buy the 2400. Otherwise, I bet the R1800 will more than enough.

BTW, great move getting your own color profile tool. Epson’s profiles are close, but not the best. I use Ilford papers and find their profiles spot on. I never quite like Epson’s profiles. Oddly, I’ve found that some of Ilford’s profiles even work better on Epson papers.

Clyde

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:20:10 -0400, Ira Solomon
wrote:

Hi:
Actually the R2400 is about $819 here, and within my price range. I’m dithering because the R1800 has a smaller drop size, and because I’ve seen a few vague comments that its color might be better. There is a review in progress at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ This gentleman does a hell of a review, but he takes his time doing it. He was very high on color for the R1800. I guess I’ll have to wait unitl he finishes the R2400. He is a working photographer, as oposed to the pure techies (of course I shouldn’t complain, as I make my living as a pure techie) who do most reviewing over here.
Thanks

The R2400 is undoubtedly better than the 1800 which doesn’t use the new inks.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:11:58 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Waiting until the next version of anything is out and tested will keep you frozen forever. Besides, you aren’t likely to see that much difference between the 1800 and the 2400 output.

The new inks, from what I’ve read, make a difference.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Clyde wrote:

I think the bigger question is what are you going to use it for? The R1800/800 is Epson’s top amateur/semi-pro printer. The 2400 is their bottom pro printer. The big difference isn’t going to be the output (the output has to be great to sell to any market) it is going to be the level of construction, duty cycle, and reliability. A pro printer has be able to print a lot more pages and do it faster without breaking down. Epson (and HP – Canon) have to build their pro level printers to take a bigger beating.

I disagree completely. If you look at both models, you’ll see that the hardware is virtually identical. The difference is in the ink sets. The R1800 has an inkset that was designed for vibrant, highly saturated colors. That’s why it includes primary colors (red and blue) next to the CMYK colors. Those are the kind of colors that the amateur market wants. The R2400 on the other hand has a ink set with ‘normal’ CMYK colors, but including three variations of grey ink for B&W printing.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate wrote:

Actually the R2400 is about $819 here, and within my price range. I’m dithering because the R1800 has a smaller drop size, and because I’ve seen a few vague comments that its color might be better. There is a review in progress at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ This gentleman does a hell of a review, but he takes his time doing it. He was very high on color for the R1800. I guess I’ll have to wait unitl he finishes the R2400. He is a working photographer, as oposed to the pure techies (of course I shouldn’t complain, as I make my living as a pure techie) who do most reviewing over here.
Thanks

The R2400 is undoubtedly better than the 1800 which doesn’t use the new inks.

You can’t (or shouldn’t) compare the two. The R1800 has an inkset with two primary colours (red and blue), giving this printer a very wide colour gamut. Wider than most inkjet printers and also wider than the R2400. The major difference between the R2400 and its predecessor is the three grey inks, which enables B&W printing without metamerism. As a colour printer the R2400 does not surpass the R1800. Many people will say it’s vice versa. The R2400 uses different inks, not ‘new = better’ inks.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:44:50 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Actually the R2400 is about $819 here, and within my price range. I’m dithering because the R1800 has a smaller drop size, and because I’ve seen a few vague comments that its color might be better. There is a review in progress at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ This gentleman does a hell of a review, but he takes his time doing it. He was very high on color for the R1800. I guess I’ll have to wait unitl he finishes the R2400. He is a working photographer, as oposed to the pure techies (of course I shouldn’t complain, as I make my living as a pure techie) who do most reviewing over here.
Thanks

The R2400 is undoubtedly better than the 1800 which doesn’t use the new inks.

You can’t (or shouldn’t) compare the two. The R1800 has an inkset with two primary colours (red and blue), giving this printer a very wide colour gamut. Wider than most inkjet printers and also wider than the R2400. The major difference between the R2400 and its predecessor is the three grey inks, which enables B&W printing without metamerism. As a colour printer the R2400 does not surpass the R1800. Many people will say it’s vice versa. The R2400 uses different inks, not ‘new = better’ inks.

Like you intimated in your earlier post, the 1800 is clearly a consumer model, the 2400 is clearly aimed at the professional.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

The R2400 is undoubtedly better than the 1800 which doesn’t use the new inks.

You can’t (or shouldn’t) compare the two. The R1800 has an inkset with two primary colours (red and blue), giving this printer a very wide colour gamut. Wider than most inkjet printers and also wider than the R2400. The major difference between the R2400 and its predecessor is the three grey inks, which enables B&W printing without metamerism. As a colour printer the R2400 does not surpass the R1800. Many people will say it’s vice versa. The R2400 uses different inks, not ‘new = better’ inks.

Like you intimated in your earlier post, the 1800 is clearly a consumer model, the 2400 is clearly aimed at the professional.

Yes, but that’s not because the R2400 uses ‘the new inks’ (and the R1800 apparently uses ‘old inks’), it’s because the R2400 uses different inks which suit professional use better. If you want vibrant colours on high gloss paper, the R1800 is clearly better than the R2400.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hi:
What about matte? We have done 99% matte printing on our current printer (Epson 1280), and I doubt that would change. I am less interested in glossy performance, and the special Matte Black Cartridge is one of the things that attracted me to the 2400.

I’m still waiting for the rest of the iPhoto review, while rearranging my office as either one of the printers requires access to the rear and can’t go where the current printer is located.

Thanks

Ira

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:16 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

The R2400 is undoubtedly better than the 1800 which doesn’t use the new inks.

You can’t (or shouldn’t) compare the two. The R1800 has an inkset with two primary colours (red and blue), giving this printer a very wide colour gamut. Wider than most inkjet printers and also wider than the R2400. The major difference between the R2400 and its predecessor is the three grey inks, which enables B&W printing without metamerism. As a colour printer the R2400 does not surpass the R1800. Many people will say it’s vice versa. The R2400 uses different inks, not ‘new = better’ inks.

Like you intimated in your earlier post, the 1800 is clearly a consumer model, the 2400 is clearly aimed at the professional.

Yes, but that’s not because the R2400 uses ‘the new inks’ (and the R1800 apparently uses ‘old inks’), it’s because the R2400 uses different inks which suit professional use better. If you want vibrant colours on high gloss paper, the R1800 is clearly better than the R2400.

Ira Solomon wrote:

What about matte? We have done 99% matte printing on our current printer (Epson 1280), and I doubt that would change. I am less interested in glossy performance, and the special Matte Black Cartridge is one of the things that attracted me to the 2400.

For matte papers I think the R2400 is indeed the better choice.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:16 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Like you intimated in your earlier post, the 1800 is clearly a consumer model, the 2400 is clearly aimed at the professional.

Yes, but that’s not because the R2400 uses ‘the new inks’ (and the R1800 apparently uses ‘old inks’), it’s because the R2400 uses different inks which suit professional use better. If you want vibrant colours on high gloss paper, the R1800 is clearly better than the R2400.

True, but then we’re down to a subjective judgment of what is "better".

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:50:05 -0400, Ira Solomon
wrote:

Hi:
What about matte? We have done 99% matte printing on our current printer (Epson 1280), and I doubt that would change. I am less interested in glossy performance, and the special Matte Black Cartridge is one of the things that attracted me to the 2400.
I’m still waiting for the rest of the iPhoto review, while rearranging my office as either one of the printers requires access to the rear and can’t go where the current printer is located.

Thanks

Then you definitely want the 2400.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:52:16 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Like you intimated in your earlier post, the 1800 is clearly a consumer model, the 2400 is clearly aimed at the professional.

Yes, but that’s not because the R2400 uses ‘the new inks’ (and the R1800 apparently uses ‘old inks’), it’s because the R2400 uses different inks which suit professional use better. If you want vibrant colours on high gloss paper, the R1800 is clearly better than the R2400.

True, but then we’re down to a subjective judgment of what is "better".

Exactly. Many people think that quality is an objective thing, which you can simply measure and then everyone has to agree. That is not true and every course or book on quality management will tell you that. Quality means "meeting or exeeding customer’s needs and expectations", so quality depends on the customer as well as the product.

If I need a balance to weigh my letters (so I know how many stamps to put on the envelope), all I need is a scale in grams. Yes, my pharmacy has a super sensitive balance that can weigh in milligrams. Is that one better? For them it is because they need it, for me it’s useless because my envelopes don’t even fit into the enclosure.

The R1800 is the ‘best’ printer for most amateurs, because most amateurs want vibrant colours on high gloss paper. The R2400 is the ‘best’ for most professionals, because their need is different. That’s exactly why Epson makes TWO printers in this segment.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:21:38 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

True, but then we’re down to a subjective judgment of what is "better".

Exactly. Many people think that quality is an objective thing, which you can simply measure and then everyone has to agree. That is not true and every course or book on quality management will tell you that. Quality means "meeting or exeeding customer’s needs and expectations", so quality depends on the customer as well as the product.

If I need a balance to weigh my letters (so I know how many stamps to put on the envelope), all I need is a scale in grams. Yes, my pharmacy has a super sensitive balance that can weigh in milligrams. Is that one better? For them it is because they need it, for me it’s useless because my envelopes don’t even fit into the enclosure.

The R1800 is the ‘best’ printer for most amateurs, because most amateurs want vibrant colours on high gloss paper. The R2400 is the ‘best’ for most professionals, because their need is different. That’s exactly why Epson makes TWO printers in this segment.

Agreed. The only thing I|’d is that measurement, quite obviously, is needed to guard against something looking right to the individual, but not to anyone else. For example, a colour cast which is unnoticed by the originator of an image, may be obvious to everyone else. I.e. it’s useful for "editing" whether it be images or words.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hello:

Having started this thread, I thought I’d mention that I just ordered the R2400 and consider myself lucky that I found one a little below list price. They are flying off the shelf.

When I get it, I’ll let you know what I think, although my opinions will be, to some extent, subjective. I saw one article today where the writer had actually measured the DMax of the ink set compared to previous ink sets. I’m not equiped for that.

Thanks for the discussion.

It did help me make up my mind.

Ira Solomon

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:48:42 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:21:38 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

True, but then we’re down to a subjective judgment of what is "better".

Exactly. Many people think that quality is an objective thing, which you can simply measure and then everyone has to agree. That is not true and every course or book on quality management will tell you that. Quality means "meeting or exeeding customer’s needs and expectations", so quality depends on the customer as well as the product.

If I need a balance to weigh my letters (so I know how many stamps to put on the envelope), all I need is a scale in grams. Yes, my pharmacy has a super sensitive balance that can weigh in milligrams. Is that one better? For them it is because they need it, for me it’s useless because my envelopes don’t even fit into the enclosure.

The R1800 is the ‘best’ printer for most amateurs, because most amateurs want vibrant colours on high gloss paper. The R2400 is the ‘best’ for most professionals, because their need is different. That’s exactly why Epson makes TWO printers in this segment.

Agreed. The only thing I|’d is that measurement, quite obviously, is needed to guard against something looking right to the individual, but not to anyone else. For example, a colour cast which is unnoticed by the originator of an image, may be obvious to everyone else. I.e. it’s useful for "editing" whether it be images or words.
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:45:35 -0400, Ira Solomon
wrote:

Hello:

Having started this thread, I thought I’d mention that I just ordered the R2400 and consider myself lucky that I found one a little below list price. They are flying off the shelf.

When I get it, I’ll let you know what I think, although my opinions will be, to some extent, subjective. I saw one article today where the writer had actually measured the DMax of the ink set compared to previous ink sets. I’m not equiped for that.

Thanks for the discussion.

It did help me make up my mind.

Glad it was of some help 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ira Solomon wrote:

What about matte? We have done 99% matte printing on our current printer (Epson 1280), and I doubt that would change. I am less interested in glossy performance, and the special Matte Black Cartridge is one of the things that attracted me to the 2400.

For matte papers I think the R2400 is indeed the better choice.

Based on what? The R1800 has a Matte Black cartridge. My R800 prints very nicely on matte papers. It even prints B&W very nicely on matte or glossy papers. (Well, with the proper profiles.)

Of course, it’s hard to compare with the 2400 – since none of us have seen the output of the 2400. I haven’t seen any tests either. Yes, I’ve read that the DMAX on the 2400 is a tad higher.

What I was trying to say was that the difference in output probably isn’t going to be that great. I bet that almost everyone in this group could not correctly identify what printers printed the same picture in a blind test. i.e. Correctly print the same picture on the R1800, 2400, and the top printers from HP and Canon. Don’t label them and have people figure out which one came from what printer. I bet that 90% of people in this group wouldn’t get it right.

Therefore, the technology is now at the level where the differences are more technical than practical.

Clyde

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
<snip>

The R1800 is the ‘best’ printer for most amateurs, because most amateurs want vibrant colours on high gloss paper. The R2400 is the ‘best’ for most professionals, because their need is different. That’s exactly why Epson makes TWO printers in this segment.

It depends on the pro too. I am a professional wedding photographer. My customers want vibrant color on glossy paper. They do not want accurate color. They don’t care about DMAX. They do care that the dress is white. They care that the tuxes are black, but not nearly as much as the dress being white. Skin tone had better be correct too. The other colors had better be well saturated.

Matte paper doesn’t say "photo" to my customers. It had better be glossy or it isn’t a real "photograph". Hey, what they print is "matte". To them "matte" means "inkjet" and cheap.

Clyde

Clyde wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ira Solomon wrote:

What about matte? We have done 99% matte printing on our current printer (Epson 1280), and I doubt that would change. I am less interested in glossy performance, and the special Matte Black Cartridge is one of the things that attracted me to the 2400.

For matte papers I think the R2400 is indeed the better choice.

Based on what? The R1800 has a Matte Black cartridge. My R800 prints very nicely on matte papers. It even prints B&W very nicely on matte or glossy papers. (Well, with the proper profiles.)

Of course, it’s hard to compare with the 2400 – since none of us have seen the output of the 2400.

Speak for yourself. I have seen all the new Epson printers at the press introduction in Warshaw. Personally I like the UltraChrome inks better for matt.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Clyde wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
<snip>

The R1800 is the ‘best’ printer for most amateurs, because most amateurs want vibrant colours on high gloss paper. The R2400 is the ‘best’ for most professionals, because their need is different. That’s exactly why Epson makes TWO printers in this segment.

It depends on the pro too.

That’s why I didn’t say "all professionals", didn’t I.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:23 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Of course, it’s hard to compare with the 2400 – since none of us have seen the output of the 2400.

Speak for yourself. I have seen all the new Epson printers at the press introduction in Warshaw. Personally I like the UltraChrome inks better for matt.

Those nice people at Epson <g> sent my copies of prints from both. The 2400 looks better for my purposes as I use mainly matte or lustre.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:11:04 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Matte paper doesn’t say "photo" to my customers. It had better be glossy or it isn’t a real "photograph". Hey, what they print is "matte". To them "matte" means "inkjet" and cheap.

Yeah, it’s a shame when you have idiots as customers, but the customer is always right 🙂

OTOH, I never use gloss. Different market (Fine Art/Nature/Landscape)

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:23 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Of course, it’s hard to compare with the 2400 – since none of us have seen the output of the 2400.

Speak for yourself. I have seen all the new Epson printers at the press introduction in Warshaw. Personally I like the UltraChrome inks better for matt.

Those nice people at Epson <g> sent my copies of prints from both. The 2400 looks better for my purposes as I use mainly matte or lustre.

You should know better. There are no nice people at Epson, because Epson is a multinational company. There must be a catch. Those prints were probably made on a Canon printer. 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Clyde wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ira Solomon wrote:

What about matte? We have done 99% matte printing on our current printer (Epson 1280), and I doubt that would change. I am less interested in glossy performance, and the special Matte Black Cartridge is one of the things that attracted me to the 2400.

For matte papers I think the R2400 is indeed the better choice.

Based on what? The R1800 has a Matte Black cartridge. My R800 prints very nicely on matte papers. It even prints B&W very nicely on matte or glossy papers. (Well, with the proper profiles.)

Of course, it’s hard to compare with the 2400 – since none of us have seen the output of the 2400.

Speak for yourself. I have seen all the new Epson printers at the press introduction in Warshaw. Personally I like the UltraChrome inks better for matt.

The R800 and R1800 use Ultrachrome inks. The pro models use Ultrachrome inks too. The K3 set they use has some inks that aren’t on the R800/1800. They are all Ultrachrome though.

I certainly can’t argue with what you like. It would be nice to tell us why you like the output of the 2400 better. Were these demonstration prints that Epson was displaying? Were they side by side with the same picture from the R800/1800? Were there both color and B&W comparisons? Were the matte papers used the same? IOW, how fair was the test?

I have a feeling that the extra bit of DMAX in the K3 black inks would show a bit better on matte paper. I’m curious to see how much difference this will really make in real prints. My years of experience in my wet darkroom tells me that some pictures will show DMAX very well, while most it doesn’t matter that much.

Clyde

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:11:04 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Matte paper doesn’t say "photo" to my customers. It had better be glossy or it isn’t a real "photograph". Hey, what they print is "matte". To them "matte" means "inkjet" and cheap.

Yeah, it’s a shame when you have idiots as customers, but the customer is always right 🙂

OTOH, I never use gloss. Different market (Fine Art/Nature/Landscape)
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

The customer isn’t always right, but she does get what she wants – particularly if she is a bride.

Then again, I’ve been doing photography long enough to know there is almost never and absolute "right". Hum… that may be more a reflection on my age and that view covering most of life.

Clyde

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:45:23 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Of course, it’s hard to compare with the 2400 – since none of us have seen the output of the 2400.

Speak for yourself. I have seen all the new Epson printers at the press introduction in Warshaw. Personally I like the UltraChrome inks better for matt.

Those nice people at Epson <g> sent my copies of prints from both. The 2400 looks better for my purposes as I use mainly matte or lustre.

You should know better. There are no nice people at Epson, because Epson is a multinational company. There must be a catch. Those prints were probably made on a Canon printer. 😉

Well, they were the same pictures you saw in Warsaw. 😉

Clyde

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:44:53 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Those nice people at Epson <g> sent my copies of prints from both. The 2400 looks better for my purposes as I use mainly matte or lustre.

You should know better. There are no nice people at Epson, because Epson is a multinational company. There must be a catch. Those prints were probably made on a Canon printer. 😉

<g> Johann, ever heard the word irony? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:12:33 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:11:04 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Matte paper doesn’t say "photo" to my customers. It had better be glossy or it isn’t a real "photograph". Hey, what they print is "matte". To them "matte" means "inkjet" and cheap.

Yeah, it’s a shame when you have idiots as customers, but the customer is always right 🙂

OTOH, I never use gloss. Different market (Fine Art/Nature/Landscape)

The customer isn’t always right, but she does get what she wants – particularly if she is a bride.

Then again, I’ve been doing photography long enough to know there is almost never and absolute "right". Hum… that may be more a reflection on my age and that view covering most of life.

LOL! Nope, it’s experience 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Clyde wrote:

Those nice people at Epson <g> sent my copies of prints from both. The 2400 looks better for my purposes as I use mainly matte or lustre.

You should know better. There are no nice people at Epson, because Epson is a multinational company. There must be a catch. Those prints were probably made on a Canon printer. 😉

Well, they were the same pictures you saw in Warsaw. 😉

Grin. In that case, there must have been a small Canon printer inside those Epson printers, because I was standing right next to the printers when the prints were made. But I’m sure Hecate will now explain to me that is indeed what companies like Epson do to cheat journalists. 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Clyde wrote:

The R800 and R1800 use Ultrachrome inks. The pro models use Ultrachrome inks too. The K3 set they use has some inks that aren’t on the R800/1800. They are all Ultrachrome though.

Not quite. They are both called ‘UltraChrome’, but the R1800 uses ‘UltraChrome Hi-Glos’, while the R2400 uses the ‘UltraChrome K3’. The main difference is that the ink set of the R1800 includes red and blue ink, but does not have light magenta and light cyan. The K3 ink set does not have red and blue ink, but it does include light magenta and light cyan. And the three black/light black inks, of course.

I certainly can’t argue with what you like. It would be nice to tell us why you like the output of the 2400 better. Were these demonstration prints that Epson was displaying? Were they side by side with the same picture from the R800/1800? Were there both color and B&W comparisons? Were the matte papers used the same? IOW, how fair was the test?

I never said that I did a fair test. It’s my impressions based on what I’ve seen from both printers, not based on a full test. At the press conference, there were only prints made with the new K3 printers. I’ve tested the R1800 myself earlier. The R1800 gives more vibrant colors, due to the added red and blue. To me, it looks great on glossy paper, but on matt paper I prefer the less vibrant colors of the K3 inks. That’s all.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Clyde wrote:

The R800 and R1800 use Ultrachrome inks. The pro models use Ultrachrome inks too. The K3 set they use has some inks that aren’t on the R800/1800. They are all Ultrachrome though.

Not quite. They are both called ‘UltraChrome’, but the R1800 uses ‘UltraChrome Hi-Glos’, while the R2400 uses the ‘UltraChrome K3’. The main difference is that the ink set of the R1800 includes red and blue ink, but does not have light magenta and light cyan. The K3 ink set does not have red and blue ink, but it does include light magenta and light cyan. And the three black/light black inks, of course.

I certainly can’t argue with what you like. It would be nice to tell us why you like the output of the 2400 better. Were these demonstration prints that Epson was displaying? Were they side by side with the same picture from the R800/1800? Were there both color and B&W comparisons? Were the matte papers used the same? IOW, how fair was the test?

I never said that I did a fair test. It’s my impressions based on what I’ve seen from both printers, not based on a full test. At the press conference, there were only prints made with the new K3 printers. I’ve tested the R1800 myself earlier. The R1800 gives more vibrant colors, due to the added red and blue. To me, it looks great on glossy paper, but on matt paper I prefer the less vibrant colors of the K3 inks. That’s all.

Yes, they are both Ultrachrome. They both use the same ink technology. They both use permanent, pigment inks. They both share some ink colors. They both have ink colors that the other set doesn’t have. They are still both Ultrachrome. They are just two different sets of Ultrachrome ink colors.

You can’t beat preferences. I’m glad for you. Someday soon we should see fair tests. Well, hopefully.

Clyde

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:12:33 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:11:04 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Matte paper doesn’t say "photo" to my customers. It had better be glossy or it isn’t a real "photograph". Hey, what they print is "matte". To them "matte" means "inkjet" and cheap.

Yeah, it’s a shame when you have idiots as customers, but the customer is always right 🙂

OTOH, I never use gloss. Different market (Fine Art/Nature/Landscape)

The customer isn’t always right, but she does get what she wants – particularly if she is a bride.

Then again, I’ve been doing photography long enough to know there is almost never and absolute "right". Hum… that may be more a reflection on my age and that view covering most of life.

LOL! Nope, it’s experience 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Yes, yes! I’m very experienced and still young.

I’m also not loosing my memory. I’m learning how much crap isn’t worth remembering. The few things worth remembering, I do just fine with.

Clyde

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:13:58 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:12:33 -0500, Clyde wrote:

<snip>

LOL! Nope, it’s experience 🙂

Yes, yes! I’m very experienced and still young.

I’m also not loosing my memory. I’m learning how much crap isn’t worth remembering. The few things worth remembering, I do just fine with.

Exactly. As you get older you learn to only remember what’s important and stop cluttering up your brain so you can do something useful with it 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hello:

Well I got the R2400.
First impressions.

Much bigger and heavier than my old 1280.
Setup is easy.
I’ve used both Epson profiles and a profile I generated and have found that HW Matte prints slightly darker then it did on the 1280. You have to have both prints to notice it.
Produces the finest glossy I have ever seen. I printed a test target from the Panetone Profiler. It was perfect. Better than anything I’ve seen from a lab.
The Enhanced Matte prints slighly lighter than the HW matte. In looking at the print of the test target I can see a little more detail in the Enhanced.
I also printed the same target using the printer driver, rather than the profiles. I jazzed it up somewhat using the "vivid" setting. Looked good for people who like "punch", but colors were off from the original.
Uses more ink than I thought it would.

Ira Solomon

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:54:28 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:13:58 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:12:33 -0500, Clyde wrote:

<snip>

LOL! Nope, it’s experience 🙂

Yes, yes! I’m very experienced and still young.

I’m also not loosing my memory. I’m learning how much crap isn’t worth remembering. The few things worth remembering, I do just fine with.

Exactly. As you get older you learn to only remember what’s important and stop cluttering up your brain so you can do something useful with it 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

I have R2400 too. It’s exactlly same as R1800 (i am talking about the "shape")
it’s darn heavy.

complaining about the ink usage on r2400??

you can try my solution; I bought an empty R2400 from InkRepublic.com which is the only CFS work for R2400.

http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R2400
http://www.inkrepublic.com/Installation.asp

and I bought epson 110ml large cartridge for 4800. Got all ink out and fill into InkRepublic’s i-INK R2400.

Booom… now I have a bulk ink kit continuously feeding my R2400 printer with Epson ink. This solution lower down my cost more than 50%. I also noticed InkRepublic’s R2400 chipset avoid printer’s auto head cleans. This design is great help to save more ink.

Ira Solomon …

Hello:

Well I got the R2400.
First impressions.

Much bigger and heavier than my old 1280.

Uses more ink than I thought it would.

Ira Solomon

Thanks.
I knew there were continuous inkers.
It never occurred to me that I could use Epson ink.
If my volume goes up I’ll get one of these things.
On 10 Jul 2005 02:45:40 -0700, (jean) wrote:

I have R2400 too. It’s exactlly same as R1800 (i am talking about the "shape")
it’s darn heavy.

complaining about the ink usage on r2400??

you can try my solution; I bought an empty R2400 from InkRepublic.com which is the only CFS work for R2400.

http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R2400
http://www.inkrepublic.com/Installation.asp

and I bought epson 110ml large cartridge for 4800. Got all ink out and fill into InkRepublic’s i-INK R2400.

Booom… now I have a bulk ink kit continuously feeding my R2400 printer with Epson ink. This solution lower down my cost more than 50%. I also noticed InkRepublic’s R2400 chipset avoid printer’s auto head cleans. This design is great help to save more ink.

Ira Solomon …

Hello:

Well I got the R2400.
First impressions.

Much bigger and heavier than my old 1280.

Uses more ink than I thought it would.

Ira Solomon