Epson R2400 vs R1800 - actual practical differences, not theoretical

Hi,

Sorry to raise this again.... ;-)

I've read up a lot of stuff on the comparison of the Epson R1800 and R2400, but although I understand the way these printers are optimised what I can't quite get a feel for is how different (or similar) they are in actual practice.

I do do black and white, so the R2400 is attractive, but I also do colour so the R1800 is as well (and a bit cheaper).

So, in real conditions, looking at prints with the naked eye, how much difference is there between the R1800 and R2400 when printing colour work? Likewise black and white?

What I'm asking is... when you see colour prints from these two printers is it obvious which has printed which or would you have to scrutinise them closely to be able to tell?

And also, how about with B&W?

Basically I'm asking because I've found other situations in the past where design parameters and lab tests say product A is better at something than product B but in actual practice it is difficult to see any difference.
In other situations, with other products, you might see a difference fairly easily. Which is this?

Thanks, John

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:35:04 GMT, John Fryatt
wrote:

Basically I'm asking because I've found other situations in the past where design parameters and lab tests say product A is better at something than product B but in actual practice it is difficult to see any difference.
In other situations, with other products, you might see a difference fairly easily. Which is this?

You're going to have to find someone who owns one of
each, eh?

Here's another idea... go to Epson's website, download some of the ICC profiles for each printer.

Then take (for example) the "Glossy/Best" profile from each, and compare them... using (for example) iccview.de or the Micro$oft color tools.

My guess is that the differences will be subtle.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"John Fryatt" wrote:

Sorry to raise this again.... ;-)

So, in real conditions, looking at prints with the naked eye, how much difference is there between the R1800 and R2400 when printing colour work? Likewise black and white?

Epson's best glossy paper _on sale in Japan_ doesn't (or didn't when I tried it 6 months ago) work with the 2400, so glossy color was a bit nicer with R800 than the R2400. This stuff is called "Crispia" over here, and is a noticeable improvemet over Epson's generic glossy photo paper. Dunno what it's called in English-speaking countries.

As I mentioned before, in my first tests I couldn't see a difference between B&W on the two. But since those were essentially my first attempts at inkjet B&W, the jury is still out on this one. But what is clear is that the R800/R1800 will produce nice B&W. Whether the 2400 can be persuaded to produce great B&W prints, and whether they will be enough better than the R1800 that you'll be bent out of shape not having an R1800 for B&W, I can't say. They should be better...

What I'm asking is... when you see colour prints from these two printers is it obvious which has printed which or would you have to scrutinise them closely to be able to tell?

And also, how about with B&W?

FWIW, as someone who likes glossy prints with gobs of detail, I was initially underwhelmed by matte prints from the 2400, but our CEO prefers the matte prints, and for 12x18 and larger, I'm getting to like them too. Instead of the in-your-face detail and color, matte paper color prints are subtle and gentle. They definately grow on you.

Basically I'm asking because I've found other situations in the past where design parameters and lab tests say product A is better at something than product B but in actual practice it is difficult to see any difference. In other situations, with other products, you might see a difference fairly easily. Which is this?

The problem with the 2400 is that you have to change ink cartridges to switch between matte and glossy paper, and this is a major, serious, obnoxious, royal pain. Since I have the A4 R800, I'm only using the R2400 for matte (and limiting my glossy work to A4), and can live with it.

The other thing is that if you are using the printer as a text printer, you need to leave the matte black ink in it all the time (photo black on plain paper comes out kind of gray).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

John Fryatt wrote:

I've read up a lot of stuff on the comparison of the Epson R1800 and R2400, but although I understand the way these printers are optimised what I can't quite get a feel for is how different (or similar) they are in actual practice.

I do do black and white, so the R2400 is attractive, but I also do colour so the R1800 is as well (and a bit cheaper).

So, in real conditions, looking at prints with the naked eye, how much difference is there between the R1800 and R2400 when printing colour work? Likewise black and white?

What I'm asking is... when you see colour prints from these two printers is it obvious which has printed which or would you have to scrutinise them closely to be able to tell?

And also, how about with B&W?

I've been thru this a few times myself, with the Epson 2000 vs 1280 and later the 1280 vs the 2200 ... no amount of verbiage on the internet can answer this as well as actually looking at prints from each printer of the same input file, especially since tastes vary as to what is a 'good print'. Once you have the prints in hand the answers will be a lot clearer.

Here's a company that can send you sample test prints from the 2400 for a few bucks ... http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/ ... you can download the test print file and have it printed by someone else on an 1800 (if you can find someone nice enough to do it ... offer $10 and you'll get many takers). At one time this company would print your own file as well for a few bucks more.

Wouldn't hurt to ask on the newsgroup if people with these printers will download this test file image (or have you send a CD with your images) and print them and mail them to you. I've done this for people for free several times with the 4000 on various papers in the past.

Again, there is NO SUBSTITUTE for seeing actual prints from the same file side by side.

Bill

For practical purposes unless you are a high end black and white art printer I doubt the capabilities of the 2400 are worth the fuss/cost. The 800/1800 is a marvellous color printer but requires accurate monitor calibration--I actually use an older CRT rather than a newer LCD. Printing B&W is actually less straight forward than color printing, where software color management strives to get WYSIWYG results for you. Even with the 2400 you have to work out your own protocols to achieve reasonably predictable results.

John Fryatt wrote:

Hi,

Sorry to raise this again.... ;-)

I've read up a lot of stuff on the comparison of the Epson R1800 and R2400, but although I understand the way these printers are optimised what I can't quite get a feel for is how different (or similar) they are in actual practice.

I have the R1800 and the results are very acceptable.

Had heaps of initial problems until my work flow was adjusted. Now its a breeze to make prints.

I do use Epson inks and Ilford papers and have standardized on these for my profiles.

I use the clear over all my prints to give them a longer life just in case.

<snip>

Ok, thanks for the replies. I've also found a bit more discussion on various forums etc.

I have looked at output from a couple of 2400s at our photo. club and decided to go for that model because...
1. It does stunning black and white.
2. Colour is pretty damn good as well. *
3. I tend to prefer matt or semi-matt prints to glossy.

(* R1800 might be better but the R2400 colour sets a pretty high standard.)

This choice might be right or might be wrong, theoretically, but at some point you have to jump in. In any case, the fact that there is so much discussion on the issue of R2400 vs R1800 leads me to think the differences are small and either choice will be very good.

I have thought of not buying a photo printer at all, or maybe just a cheapo one for proofs and misc. prints, and using a lab for good prints. In the end though, I think I'll probably get a good printer as it's nice to be in control of the whole process. Haven't quite decided yet though. I'll work out the costs in more detail before I decide. If costs fell strongly either way that might decide for me, but if it isn't that clear-cut I think it'll be more of a 'desired method of working' decision rather than cost-based.
Funny how that 500 quid doesn't seem to want to come out of my pocket. ;-)

Regards, John

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:48:35 GMT, John Fryatt
wrote:

Funny how that 500 quid doesn't seem to want to come out of my pocket. ;-)

Given that cost *does* seem to be an issue, and that the differences are subtle, that might seem to argue in favor of the R1800.

Amazon has the R1800 for $479 and the R2400 for $755.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:48:35 GMT, John Fryatt
wrote:

Funny how that 500 quid doesn't seem to want to come out of my pocket. ;-)

Given that cost *does* seem to be an issue, and that the differences are subtle, that might seem to argue in favor of the R1800.

True. However, as I understand it the differences are not subtle in respect of B&W. I think maybe I need to get a sample from an R1800. In fact, I just saw that Epson UK allow you to upload an image and get sample prints. I'll try that.

Amazon has the R1800 for $479 and the R2400 for $755.

Amazon UK have these for £318 and £490.

John

David J. Littleboy wrote:

The other thing is that if you are using the printer as a text printer, you need to leave the matte black ink in it all the time (photo black on plain paper comes out kind of gray).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Thanks for all the input on the R2400 printer. I am looking to replace an older HP CM2500 with an R2400 and the primary use for the new printer will be black and white photos on glossy stock. However, there is also a requirement for me to print 11 X 17 floor plan drawings from AutoCAD on regular paper. I found this interesting that the photo black ink comes out gray on plain paper. Is this true, does anyone have input into this?

What is required to switch between the matte black & photo black, is it just switching the cartridges or is there a clean-out process? What happens to the cartridge that has been used, does it dry out?

Thanks in advance.

Thomas J Wilson

www.thomasjwilson.ca

Well, the two differences one good one bad.

1) the 2400 uses a different ink I believe.
2. This is the bad one, you can't have all three black's in at the same time. For what Epson charges the designers should be taken out an shot for that.

Just another reason the HP B9810 is the way to go. Larger ink cartridges too!

R

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

<snip>

Ok, thanks for the replies. I've also found a bit more discussion on various forums etc.

I have looked at output from a couple of 2400s at our photo. club and decided to go for that model because...
1. It does stunning black and white.
2. Colour is pretty damn good as well. *
3. I tend to prefer matt or semi-matt prints to glossy.

(* R1800 might be better but the R2400 colour sets a pretty high standard.)

This choice might be right or might be wrong, theoretically, but at some point you have to jump in. In any case, the fact that there is so much discussion on the issue of R2400 vs R1800 leads me to think the differences are small and either choice will be very good.
I have thought of not buying a photo printer at all, or maybe just a cheapo one for proofs and misc. prints, and using a lab for good prints. In the end though, I think I'll probably get a good printer as it's nice to be in control of the whole process. Haven't quite decided yet though. I'll work out the costs in more detail before I decide. If costs fell strongly either way that might decide for me, but if it isn't that clear-cut I think it'll be more of a 'desired method of working' decision rather than cost-based.
Funny how that 500 quid doesn't seem to want to come out of my pocket. ;-)

Regards, John

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

Hi,

Sorry to raise this again.... ;-)

I've read up a lot of stuff on the comparison of the Epson R1800 and R2400, but although I understand the way these printers are optimised what I can't quite get a feel for is how different (or similar) they are in actual practice.

I do do black and white, so the R2400 is attractive, but I also do colour so the R1800 is as well (and a bit cheaper).

So, in real conditions, looking at prints with the naked eye, how much difference is there between the R1800 and R2400 when printing colour work? Likewise black and white?

What I'm asking is... when you see colour prints from these two printers is it obvious which has printed which or would you have to scrutinise them closely to be able to tell?

And also, how about with B&W?

Basically I'm asking because I've found other situations in the past where design parameters and lab tests say product A is better at something than product B but in actual practice it is difficult to see any difference. In other situations, with other products, you might see a difference fairly easily. Which is this?

Thanks, John

I replaced my 1270 with the R1800
I do little B&W anymore but had lovely prints on my old 1270 so I figured the 1800 could handle it
I do mostly color glossy and need the larger size paper up to 13x19 bleeds The results on matte look outstanding too (Epson watercolor paper) Had a LOT of trouble with the profiles for the R1800
did not like any of them
switched the output choice to the old 1270 icc profile and it all looks good now
with my old printer I used the printer drivers
I did switch to adobe output controlling the color so maybe I was on a learning curve
I found choosing a different gamma setting in the printer interface made a good difference
it takes a couple days to tweak it out
good luck

KatWoman wrote:

"John Fryatt" wrote in message

Hi,

Sorry to raise this again.... ;-)

I've read up a lot of stuff on the comparison of the Epson R1800 and R2400, but although I understand the way these printers are optimised what I can't quite get a feel for is how different (or similar) they are in actual practice.

I do do black and white, so the R2400 is attractive, but I also do colour so the R1800 is as well (and a bit cheaper).

So, in real conditions, looking at prints with the naked eye, how much difference is there between the R1800 and R2400 when printing colour work? Likewise black and white?

What I'm asking is... when you see colour prints from these two printers is it obvious which has printed which or would you have to scrutinise them closely to be able to tell?

And also, how about with B&W?

Basically I'm asking because I've found other situations in the past where design parameters and lab tests say product A is better at something than product B but in actual practice it is difficult to see any difference. In other situations, with other products, you might see a difference fairly easily. Which is this?

Thanks, John

I replaced my 1270 with the R1800
I do little B&W anymore but had lovely prints on my old 1270 so I figured the 1800 could handle it
I do mostly color glossy and need the larger size paper up to 13x19 bleeds The results on matte look outstanding too (Epson watercolor paper) Had a LOT of trouble with the profiles for the R1800
did not like any of them
switched the output choice to the old 1270 icc profile and it all looks good now
with my old printer I used the printer drivers
I did switch to adobe output controlling the color so maybe I was on a learning curve
I found choosing a different gamma setting in the printer interface made a good difference
it takes a couple days to tweak it out
good luck

I also when back to square one with my R1800 (Did have the 1270)