Epson introduces 8 ink tank printers
ato...@hotmail.com
UltaChrome K3 8 ink cartridges fitted in the R2400
Light Light Black, Light Magenta, Light Cyan, Light Black, Photo Black or Matte Black,
Cyan, Magenta and Yellow
Measkite is just going to have a field day with this.
Results look very impressive (if you can keep the ink flowing).
Waterproof prints are also in the pipeline, also printing on
difficult and textured surfaces, for greater creative expression
say Epson..
ftran999
<ato...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qcqdnZI4ycD...@pipex.net...
"Photo Black OR Matte Black" So I guess this means these two cartridges
would have to be switched out depending on what one's printing needs are?
That's what I like about my r1800, the MK and PK are in different bays
negating the need for switching. Wonder why Epson just didn't go for the
nineth bay.
Also since they added the extra shade of black it looks like Epson is
getting serious about black & white prints?
frederick
<snip>
Did your ISP's news server take about two years to propogate your
message to these groups, or do you rely entirely on reading magazines in
dentists waiting rooms to keep up to date with the world?
SleeperMan
i think that it was found out a few years ago that more than 5-6 carts is
pointless, since the difference can't be recognized.
--
Visit my web page at http://www.protoncek.com
Taliesyn
The company profits go up amazingly with each extra cartridge. So their
accounting department would be the first to recognize the amazing
difference an 8, 10 or 12 cartridge printer can have. ;-)
-Taliesyn
SleeperMan
i would agree with that. Because printer with more carts is "way better,
more proffesional model" and as such sold at way bigger prices. And there
are many people out there who actually believe that crap. It's quite
profitable policy and companies are not stupid, it's folk, who's prepared to
pay ten times price for 1% better quality.
rafe b
<Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote:
>> Waterproof prints are also in the pipeline, also printing on
>> difficult and textured surfaces, for greater creative expression
>> say Epson..
In the pipeline? They're already here.
Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, on an R1800.
I just tried it... held the print under hot
running water for a minute or so. No problem
at all.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
rafe b
<Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote:
>Taliesyn wrote:
>> The company profits go up amazingly with each extra cartridge. So
>> their accounting department would be the first to recognize the
>> amazing difference an 8, 10 or 12 cartridge printer can have. ;-)
>>
>i would agree with that. Because printer with more carts is "way better,
>more proffesional model" and as such sold at way bigger prices. And there
>are many people out there who actually believe that crap. It's quite
>profitable policy and companies are not stupid, it's folk, who's prepared to
>pay ten times price for 1% better quality.
There is truth in both arguments: yes, of course,
Epson is looking at dollar signs.
OTOH, the extra inks (or even clear coats) offer
many potential advantages, including (but not
limited to) beautiful monochrome prints, extra
gamut on color prints, or clear sealants for
gloss and/or longevity.
Apparently the old and venerable Epson 1160 is
still sold outside the USA. IMO, it was the
last and best four-color printer (CMYK) that
Epson made. I hear tell you can still buy
it (new) in the UK and Oz.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
zakezuke
> running water for a minute or so. No problem
> at all.
I did the same with Canon ink, and MIS ink, on their pr-101 paper.
Kirkland letter sized photo paper did bleed a tad moments after
printing.
SleeperMan
it's better models. Sure, it lasts longer, but it lacks of high gloss no
matter what they do. It's gloss optimizer is desperate try to achieve
results, but works only parly. I guess it's up to a decision either high
glossy nice photos or long lasting, can't have both...
rafe b
<Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote:
>Epson's continuing struggle is about gloss, since it uses pigmented ink on
>it's better models. Sure, it lasts longer, but it lacks of high gloss no
>matter what they do. It's gloss optimizer is desperate try to achieve
>results, but works only parly. I guess it's up to a decision either high
>glossy nice photos or long lasting, can't have both...
Have you seen prints from the R800 or R1800?
I'm pretty pleased with the results, on Epson PGPP.
Bear in mind that there are now several different
formulations of the Epson Ultrachrome ink set, and
more still in the works, I hear.
Eg., a new variant of the R1800 was just introduced
in Japan, dubbed PXG-5100. Offhand, since I can't
read Japanese, I can't tell what's new about it.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
measekite
rafe b wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:38:42 +0100, "SleeperMan"
><Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Epson's continuing struggle is about gloss, since it uses pigmented ink on
>>it's better models. Sure, it lasts longer, but it lacks of high gloss no
>>matter what they do. It's gloss optimizer is desperate try to achieve
>>results, but works only parly. I guess it's up to a decision either high
>>glossy nice photos or long lasting, can't have both...
>>
>>
>
>
>Have you seen prints from the R800 or R1800?
>
>I'm pretty pleased with the results, on Epson PGPP.
>
>
YES. VERY GOOD BUT SUSCEPTABLE TO BRONZING. AND NOT QUITE AS VIVID AS
THE CANON I9900
measekite
SleeperMan wrote:
HE FINALLY WOKE UP AND SAID SOMETHING
>.
>
>
>
SleeperMan
it's just ....no matter how they try and improve their ink, the real point
is in pigment technique:
photo paper has ultra gloss layer at the top. Dye ink is absorbed by it and
so ink goes UNDER this gloss layer, as a result gloss remains on the top,
shining like hell, (and then also waterproofing is achieved by this).
Pigment ink is made of micro particles and as such remains on the surfface
ABOVE this gloss layer, covering it and preventing it from shining. Then
only thing Epson can do is to add a finish gloss layer (kind of liquid),
which, no matter what they do, can't be as glossy as gloss layer on the
paper. The difference isn't space big, but it's there. Compare print on, say
Epson ultra gloss paper (or whatever), and print on Canon Photo paper
pro...results ARE visible. And that is comparing cheap ip4000 with expensive
Epson model. I made a couple of prints on that paper, took it into store (my
friend worked there) and we made some prints on Epson R800, which costs
somewhat than twice as my ip4000...results were .... well, i'm very glad i
chose Canon...that's all i'll say.
See, the main point when printing photos is (at least for me and many
others, i'm sure) that i give a shit about lasting 100 years or so...i just
want to make a perfect print. If it fades after 2 or 5 years, i'll just
print another one and it will be new again.
frederick
frederick
> See, the main point when printing photos is (at least for me and many
> others, i'm sure) that i give a shit about lasting 100 years or so...i just
> want to make a perfect print. If it fades after 2 or 5 years, i'll just
> print another one and it will be new again.
>
Many do care though. Canon has several new pigment printers, HP has
one coming.
SleeperMan
well, i hope so...
rafe b
>HP thinks you can.
As long as you use only HP swellable-polymer paper.
Alas, that's a deal I've had to refuse, else I would
still be using my DesignJet 30.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Arthur Entlich
4800, 7800 and 10800 wide carriage versions using the same inksets.
The Ultrachrome ink sets have very few issues with clogging.
Art
Arthur Entlich
Neutral and well toned.
Art
Arthur Entlich
to print a neutral black and white image without using colored inks
which tend to cause all sorts of weird color casts. It also is more
economical in ink usage, although other aspects of having more
individual cartridges could add to costs.
Art
Arthur Entlich
1) to improve gamut with pigment inks, sometimes adding a red or blue or
green cartridge will help, since the ink colorant is not transparent and
is indeed the color of the ink. Dye inks are transparent and often made
of mixed colors.
2) Particularly with dye printers, if the dot is small enough (like 1
picolitre, and the printer can print enough of them, there really is no
point in having more than 3 colors plus black for color images. It gets
a bit trickier for grey scale images. In general, a 1 picolitre drop is
not resolvable by an unassisted human eye.
Art
Arthur Entlich
Microporous papers trap even water soluble inks and make the surface
waterproof. To test the ink, print on bond paper without an inkjet
surface (or use a swellable polymer surface, although seems like a waste
of good paper... ;-)
Art
Arthur Entlich
ink that pretty much eliminates the differentiation between printed and
unprinted areas, according to press releases and some users.
Art
Arthur Entlich
reprint our older work ever 3-5 years.
Art
SleeperMan
> Some of us actually sell our prints or have better things to do than
> reprint our older work ever 3-5 years.
>
and better.
But,as i said, you go on with wise talk....i'm out since it's no use...
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Some of us actually sell our prints or have better things to do than
> reprint our older work ever 3-5 years.
>
> Art
HE REALLY DOES NOT KNOW. THE HIGH QUALITY PRINTERS WE USE TODAY WERE
NOT AROUND 5 YEARS AGO SO HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT WILL NEED REPRINTED.
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> The new 2400 and other X800 printers use a newer more glossy
> Ultrachrome ink that pretty much eliminates the differentiation
> between printed and unprinted areas, according to press releases and
> some users.
>
> Art
PRETTY MUCH IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ALL
Arthur Entlich
Art
SleeperMan
> You are lucky to have such a good lab available at such great prices.
>
> Art
>
Any photo lab can develop - make pictures from a CD now, unless you live in
kamchatka...
and it's not half cheaper, but cheaper than that. Since paper is expensive,
ink, etc....And lab photos still last quite long.
CarBone
Yes, I would say that inkjet fine art prints from certain studios are
vastly superior to photolab developers - for instance Nash Editions in
Manhattan Beach, Ca.
http://www.nasheditions.com/
>
SleeperMan
Either this is true or not would be possible to say after, say , 50 years
from now...now these artificial tests are all just approximate. But in any
case ink does fade. None at last, i'm sure that their photos are far more
expensive than lab ones.
Arthur Entlich
Art
SleeperMan
> The type of labs you speak of are fine for 4 x 6" snapshots.
>
Arthur Entlich
However, the same person who does the most respected inkjet and paper
tests, also literally wrote the book on fading in traditional
photographic papers.
In actual fact, when it comes to color, the longer lasting pigment color
inks matched with the correct papers vastly outlast even the best known
photographic color print papers.
Black and white silver printers are very archival if processed properly,
but so are black and white inkjet prints made with the right inks and
papers.
And as for the tests being approximate, although there is some truth to
this (so are the estimates for current color photo papers that show 100
year fade resistance, BTW) but in many cases with inks, the components
are already known from much earlier experiences, like the pigments used
in paintings or other older art forms. For instance, lampblack, which
is used in some pigment ink formulations for black ink colorant, is a
very old pigment and drawing using it are held in museums, and are
hundreds of years old.
Art
Arthur Entlich
probably little to no financial incentive to have this size printed by
inkjet printer at home. At home printing may prove more convenient than
other methods, although you can download them to a stop and have them
mailed.
Art
SleeperMan
> I am not sure what your last sentence was supposed to read.
>
> However, the same person who does the most respected inkjet and paper
> tests, also literally wrote the book on fading in traditional
> photographic papers.
>
> In actual fact, when it comes to color, the longer lasting pigment
> color inks matched with the correct papers vastly outlast even the
> best known photographic color print papers.
>
> Black and white silver printers are very archival if processed
> properly, but so are black and white inkjet prints made with the
> right inks and papers.
>
> And as for the tests being approximate, although there is some truth
> to this (so are the estimates for current color photo papers that
> show 100 year fade resistance, BTW) but in many cases with inks, the
> components are already known from much earlier experiences, like the
> pigments used in paintings or other older art forms. For instance,
> lampblack, which is used in some pigment ink formulations for black
> ink colorant, is a very old pigment and drawing using it are held in
> museums, and are hundreds of years old.
>
> Art
>
years old without and really visual fading...
Now, all i can say is that obviously that paints aren't suitable for
printers, otherwise i bet that would be used everywhere...
SleeperMan
> Unless you enjoy the process of printing your own snaps, there is
> probably little to no financial incentive to have this size printed by
> inkjet printer at home. At home printing may prove more convenient
> than other methods, although you can download them to a stop and have
> them mailed.
>
> Art
>
give away serious shots, i always give them on CD and then it's up to
receipient what and how to cope with them. OK, i guess those who do this for
work years and years know a bit more. what pisses me off is those commercial
promises that print will last "100 years and more"...how the hell can they
be so sure if that time hasn't passed yet. Ok, they do tests, but they
simulate time and this can't be exact no matter how they try. Only time will
tell...only time...
It's same as roof on the house..,back in old days they used to "bake" clay
in the sun for 2 or even 3 years before further work, while now they do it
for 24 hours in "simulated 3 years" ovens...result is that i have 80 years
old pre-world war II roof while many of my friends change it after 30 years
or less(since they bought it later, made with new system).
It's just...you can't beat - or simulate - or anything...time. Time MUST
pass. Any chemicals - - - it's just assuming. BIG assuming. Only real thing
is experiences from years back while using old type inks,observing life of
that prints and then improving it. But, unfortunately, printers aren't 100
years old, so...
Enough smalltalk...in short, i enjoy my printer, while (i hope) you are
happy with yours. And that's all we need...right?
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:jVZOf.705$oj5.2...@news.siol.net...
> Prints i mostly do are occasional, some for fun, some for friends...if i
> give away serious shots, i always give them on CD and then it's up to
> receipient what and how to cope with them. OK, i guess those who do this
> for work years and years know a bit more. what pisses me off is those
> commercial promises that print will last "100 years and more"...how the
> hell can they be so sure if that time hasn't passed yet. Ok, they do
> tests, but they simulate time and this can't be exact no matter how they
> try. Only time will tell...only time...
There's not much on this planet that's "for certain"
There are always variables and second order effects
that weren't accounted for.
But if you care about print longevity, it's foolish to ignore
the science and the research that's already been done.
And if you don't care, it's equally foolish to denigrate
that work.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
SleeperMan
> "SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:jVZOf.705$oj5.2...@news.siol.net...
>
>> Prints i mostly do are occasional, some for fun, some for
>> friends...if i give away serious shots, i always give them on CD and
>> then it's up to receipient what and how to cope with them. OK, i
>> guess those who do this for work years and years know a bit more.
>> what pisses me off is those commercial promises that print will last
>> "100 years and more"...how the hell can they be so sure if that time
>> hasn't passed yet. Ok, they do tests, but they simulate time and
>> this can't be exact no matter how they try. Only time will
>> tell...only time...
>
>
> There's not much on this planet that's "for certain"
> There are always variables and second order effects
> that weren't accounted for.
true.
>
> But if you care about print longevity, it's foolish to ignore
> the science and the research that's already been done.
true again.
> And if you don't care, it's equally foolish to denigrate
> that work.
true for a third time.
but, still i think it's arogant to claim 100 years or more if not proven.
It's just an assumption - say, if they lasted 10 years and looking good,
they surely will last 90 more...bloody lie, i say.
Again i say what's foolish is have ANY kind of paper-based photo and have
NO other source of original. CDR's, DVD's are so cheap that it's really not
a problem to have 2 or 3 equal copies of most dear shots at home. In this
case you can reprint or remake paper photo at any time. We have proffesional
photographers who after done shooting, they give paper photos along with CDR
copy. In this way you can ither order photos anytime or make them by
yourself anytime.
BTW...your web page is still not accessible :-((
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> BTW...your web page is still not accessible :-((
I've never had a problem accessing it, from any
location. Except a few times right around 2AM,
(USA, Eastern time) on certain evenings -- I suspect
that's when my hosting service does backups
and maintenance.
It's been tested with IE, several versions of Netscape,
Opera, and FireFox. The HTML/CSS is validated.
Can't imagine what your problem is, though I notice
you're hosting your site from Slovenia. Could that
have something to do with it ?
rafe b
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
SleeperMan
accessible worldwide...
Oh, BTW...one of things is also that i can't see group
alt.comp.periphs.printers, just the one without alt.---
i hope at least you can see mine...not that it's anything very wise or very
usefull there... :-)
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> rafe b wrote:
>> Can't imagine what your problem is, though I notice
>> you're hosting your site from Slovenia. Could that
>> have something to do with it ?
> hm...that could be it, although my believe was always that sites should be
> accessible worldwide...
That's the theory, but I haven't tried surfing from China.
Yesterday (according to the stats) there were visits from
UK, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Austria, Singapore, Poland,
Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Turkey, Finland,
Spain and Russia.
> Oh, BTW...one of things is also that i can't see group
> alt.comp.periphs.printers, just the one without alt.---
> i hope at least you can see mine...not that it's anything very wise or
> very usefull there... :-)
Various ISPs choose the USENET groups they're going
to offer. Some have long lists, some have short ones.
Mine shows something like 60,000 groups, of which I
subscribe to about 5.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Arthur Entlich
Some older paintings have faded badly, and museums spend literally
millions of dollars in both protecting these with special climate
controls and restoring the paintings after damage has occurred.
On the other side, indeed some of the pigments used in known works of
art centuries ago, are used within inkjet inks today, so in spite of
accelerated aging tests and their flaws, these colorants may have
historical reference.
Art
Arthur Entlich
and DVDs will be any more safe archively than the prints
measekite
SleeperMan
> OH YEAH---MATISE USED AN INKJET WITH OEM INK
>
SleeperMan
> You have no guarantee the dyes or other processes (for RW) used in CDs
> and DVDs will be any more safe archively than the prints
>
...what...10 cents.?
SleeperMan
finally works!!! i'll look into it.
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> YEAH BABY!!!
> finally works!!! i'll look into it.
Well, I hope you're not too disappointed.<grin.>
So what changed? Any idea?
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
SleeperMan
> "SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:jQjPf.731$oj5.2...@news.siol.net...
>
>> YEAH BABY!!!
>> finally works!!! i'll look into it.
>
>
> Well, I hope you're not too disappointed.<grin.>
> So what changed? Any idea?
>
nothing. But today works...
You have quite a collection of very nice shots there...a lot of shooting...a
lot...
however i still think that a good digital camera would save you a lot of
work...but would also lighten your pocket quite a bit, since for that pro
work you'd really need some piece of camera, like EOS1D mark II ;-)
zakezuke
> True. But, you can make a copy every, say 10 years...and you loose
> ...what...10 cents.?
And time. Dont' get me wrong... I print with aftermarket ink my self.
It's not like you can trully fill your printer with 100 sheets of
letter/a4 sized photo paper and let it go on it's way, given the volume
of consumer inkjet carts you'd be lucky to get 1/2 those on a normal
sized tank, plus the fact that a new printer is going to have a
learning curve as far as color rendering, but even if you go the
default settings we are talking 40 sheets a print job before one needs
to refill. The number of jobs you can do in a day depend on how much
time you can dedicate to walking back to your printer and adding more
ink. If this is an 10 year archive you are reprinting... this isn't a
small job, this is a huge job. Days, weeks, months... huge job.
I'm not saying it's a bad plan, nor a good plan.... only you are losing
more than 10cents/print. I can see where one might want to spend extra
on their series of 2min jobs, do it right the first time, and not have
a huge job to do in 10 years.
measekite
SleeperMan wrote:
>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>OH YEAH---MATISE USED AN INKJET WITH OEM INK
>>
>>
>>
>nope...it used aftermarket one..i've been there...i even sold him that ink
>
>
AH A RELABELER
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> You have quite a collection of very nice shots there...a lot of
> shooting...a lot...
> however i still think that a good digital camera would save you a lot of
> work...but would also lighten your pocket quite a bit, since for that pro
> work you'd really need some piece of camera, like EOS1D mark II ;-)
The "digital darkroom" page needs lots of updating.
I'm shooting mostly MF, LF and digital these days,
very little 35mm film. Sounds schizophrenic... and
it is. Scans of LF are around 100 million pixels.
You'd need a $25,000 MF digital back to match
the image quality.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
SleeperMan
you wish...at that time OEM ink wasn't even invented yet :-)
SleeperMan
huh...
good luck with pixel counting... :-)
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> huh...
> good luck with pixel counting... :-)
With scans of LF, you can make razor-sharp 24" x 30" prints.
They're fun to look at. You can see a pine needle thirty feet away.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
SleeperMan
Ok, sure, you can't expect anyone to refresh, say, 10.000 prints every 10
years...i guess i'm talking mostly for home use, where a couple of shots are
present, like your kid, pet, whatever...
and i mean that these days archiving is no longer on paper, but rather on
digital media. So, printing is made only a couple of selected shots, rest
are safely stored digitally. This wasn't possible with negative, since
negative did loose quality, while digitals don't...but, as said, it's a good
idea to make a backup every, say, 10 years, while also in that time a new
media comes out and you copy while stuff there...like, say, you have 5 CDR's
of shots, now youcan make a backup copy of one single DVD-R (ok, two
identical). 10 years from now, i guess we'll make a backup on maybe bluray
disc...but the point is that quality of original will remain intact.
SleeperMan
well, i guess this is called "detailed shooting"...you need quite a hdd for
all this stuff then :-)
rafe b
"SleeperMan" <Sleep...@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> well, i guess this is called "detailed shooting"...you need quite a hdd
> for all this stuff then :-)
You can't hardly buy a hard drive these days that's
smaller than 100 Gig. As high quality JPGs, these
scans are about 70-80 Mbytes. The TIFs are
300 Mbytes (8-bit color) or 600 Mbytes (16-bit
color) and shoveled off onto DVDs.
One doesn't shoot LF like one shoots digital. I
have six film holders (= 12 sheets of film) in the
kit. So on any given outing with the LF camera,
I'll be taking 12 shots, max. The film is about
$1.50 a sheet, and processing is $2.50 a sheet.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
SleeperMan
with 12M.... :-)