Epson Printer info needed
HMacK
the 1280 and the 2000P. With the exception of the Ink both seem to have the
same specs.
I plan to print photos in the 8x10 - 13x19 range (anything larger I print to
a LightJet). Most will be laminated and float-mounted. These will be scanned
slide/negs that are colour corrected in Photoshop. My concerns are the
quality and colour-fastness of the images.
Am I overlooking anything????
My questions:
What makes the 2000p worth approx $600 CAD more then the 1280.
How would the 1280 with 3rd party archival inks compare to the 2000p with
the Epson inks.
How do inks such as Generations Archival Pigment inks (
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/generations-enhanced.html ), which are
Pigment inks compare to Dye or Dye/Pigment inks.
Thanx for everyones help........... fotosb...@hotmail.com
JgA
good luck . jgA
Ian Burley
Negatives include lower colour gamut than the dye-based ink 1280, poor gloss
finish (may not apply to you).
I have seen plenty of negative comments from people who bought 2000s without
trying them before buying them. The 1280 is a proven, good quality photo
printer, but its light fastness guarantee (only on Epson media) is just 20
years. But colours will be better...
Ian
--
Digital Photography Now
UK-based digital photo Web magazine
http://www.dp-now.com
"HMacK" <harveym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4tOg8.13619$jz3.16...@news.tor.primus.ca...
Bob G
archival of pigmented ink, check out Media Street and their Generations
ink for the 1280, same 100 years, same rub off on high gloss. Paper is
the biggy for archival prints, get good paper.
You can take my opinions with a grain of salt too. I'm 66 years old,
if my prints fade after 27 years, bring them back, I'll make you a new
one. :-)
Hank Scorpio
HS
"Bob G" <qs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yLoi8.157387$pN4.8...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
mariel noir
(in message <yLoi8.157387$pN4.8...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>):
>>
>> What makes the 2000p worth approx $600 CAD more then the 1280.
I switched from an Epson 3000 to the 1280 about six months ago. I'm not
familiar with the 2000, but the 3000 is a gigantic space waster... the
footprint is enormous, literally needed its own room. The 1280 is MUCH
smaller, truly a desktop printer... prints at higher resolution and much
higher speeds, and prints full bleed 13 x 19. I use it mostly for
high-quality color comps and 8 x 10 photos. I have used the Photo Grade
glossy paper, which turns out amazingly detailed prints... but I have no
experience with Archival paper. The only small negative I can offer is that
the black ink cartridge runs out more frequently than I would like. While the
3000 took individual color ink cartridges (I was still using the original
ones after over a year of printing), the 1280 uses a black and a color
cartridge. They are not cheap ã and you will probably need to replace them
more often than you'd care to. That's how Epson makes its money. Last thought
on this: if you do any Postscript printing, the optional PS rip seems to work
a lot better with the 1280 than it did with the 3000. Hope this is helpful.
mariel
Hank Scorpio
ink cartridges (CMYK) and pigment (DuraBright) inks. There is a review on
the Luminous Landscape website which compares it to the 1280 I believe
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/epson_c80.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/2000p.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1280.htm
HS
"mariel noir" <marie...@TAKEITOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B8B60FA60...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 9:12:46 -0500, Bob G wrote
> (in message <yLoi8.157387$pN4.8...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>):
>
>
> >>
> >> What makes the 2000p worth approx $600 CAD more then the 1280.
>
> I switched from an Epson 3000 to the 1280 about six months ago. I'm not
> familiar with the 2000, but the 3000 is a gigantic space waster... the
> footprint is enormous, literally needed its own room. The 1280 is MUCH
> smaller, truly a desktop printer... prints at higher resolution and much
> higher speeds, and prints full bleed 13 x 19. I use it mostly for
> high-quality color comps and 8 x 10 photos. I have used the Photo Grade
> glossy paper, which turns out amazingly detailed prints... but I have no
> experience with Archival paper. The only small negative I can offer is
that
> the black ink cartridge runs out more frequently than I would like. While
the
> 3000 took individual color ink cartridges (I was still using the original
> ones after over a year of printing), the 1280 uses a black and a color
> cartridge. They are not cheap < and you will probably need to replace them
VT
<hanks...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>if you don't need a large format, you should consider the C80. Individual
>ink cartridges (CMYK) and pigment (DuraBright) inks. There is a review on
>the Luminous Landscape website which compares it to the 1280 I believe
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/epson_c80.htm
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/2000p.htm
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1280.htm
>
Thanks for the references.
The Epson C80 is reviewed and regarded by Alain Briot as a Photo
printer, and I would not dream of challanging or disputing his
opinion.
However one should note that the Epson C80 is a 4-color (3 colors +
black) printer and that Espon themselves do not designate it as a
Photo printer - but call it an Office Printer.
see:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@2066592284.1016132631@@@@&BV_EngineID=jadcdhkfkeefbfdmcfjgckidnf.0&Category=Products&oid=-8165
There are many web references that show 6-color printing makes the
print dots less visible, and the color graduation smoother.
see:
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/dot_comp.html
and the enlarged scanned prints at:
http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue9.html
However the Epson C80 does manage to avoid the metamerism of the Epson
Stylus Photo 2000P by not using the 2 lighter shades of inks.
Apparently one gains longevity of the print and lack of metamerism Vs.
dot visibility and color graduation/smoothness.
--
Vincent
remove CLOTHES when replying
bj
<marie...@TAKEITOUThotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 9:12:46 -0500, Bob G wrote
>(in message <yLoi8.157387$pN4.8...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>):
>
>
>>>
>>> What makes the 2000p worth approx $600 CAD more then the 1280.
>
The 2000P uses pigment-based inks, and therefore prints from this
printer is far more resistant to color fading.
Prints from an Epson 1290 lasts for about 25 years under certain
conditions, while prints from the 2000P lasts for more than 100 years
given the same conditions.
That's why photographers who sell prints as photos use the 2000P.
BJ
Stephan
The print made on the 2000 may last 100years (or less if you check on the
european epson site) but they are inferior in quality to those made on the
1290
Stephan
"bj" <bjojREM...@eunet.no> wrote in message
news:joo49ug273svm2cbq...@4ax.com...
> >cartridge. They are not cheap < and you will probably need to replace
Hank Scorpio
with more ink down on the paper. I think Epson designates this as an office
printer because of the speed (20ppm black) and the fact that there is a
wireless network version of the C80 as well. On the side of the box it says
"Up to 2880 x 720 dpi Perfect Picture printing".
"VT" <vtvi...@prodigyCLOTHES.net> wrote in message
news:3c90f427...@news.prodigy.net...