Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Shooter wrote:
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123110346.283033@ftpsrv1...
>
>>Shooter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
>>>
>>>
>>>>zakezuke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
>>>>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
>>>>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
>>>>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
>>>>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
>>>>>
>>>>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
>>>>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
>>>>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
>>>>>
>>>>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
>>>>>
>>>>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
>>>>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
>>>>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
>>>>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
>>>>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
>>>>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
>>>>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
>>>>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
>>>>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
>>>>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
>>>>>going with 3rd party inks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
>>>>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
>>>>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
>>>>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
>>>>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
>>>>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
>>>>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
>>>>print life).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
>>>pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
>>>printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and
>
> printed on
>
>>>an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film
>
> lab.
>
>>Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
>>optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
>>The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
>>film lab.
>
>
>
> True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
> bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
> Very nice if you want to
> get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new Epson, I
> don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink so
> for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
> just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off both
> printers and there is still bronzing.
See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
held up on the surace.
Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
expensive than the R1800.
> When you say the two you quote as
> giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs from
> a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with these
> improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
> processed in a lab.
>
> When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film or
> digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a film
> camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many respects.
> if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for the
> job.
>
>
I disagree.
Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800."
(see
http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram