U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Pinters might be OT

Re: Pinters might be OT



Diana,

I agree with you and Don about the Epson 3800 being the one. It prints great, especially in the Advanced Black and White mode. I really like the way both photo black and matte black inks are ready to use at all times. That's one feature I wish my 9880 had. Otherwise the 3800 and 9880 print exactly the same. The latter can handle role paper and much wider. Controls and quality of print are the same with both.

Also, these printers have ethernet ports. Just plug an ethernet cable in the back and you can print from anywhere in the house. Very handy.

I have not, however, tried printing on the thinner Ultrafine transparency material. Have you Diana? I think the 9880 might handle it better because of the suction, but cannot say for sure till I actually try printing on it.

Congratulations on the print sale! I also sold a bunch recently. Nice to be able to buy some expensive toys.

Sam

On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:02 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

Marek,

I agree with Don.† I used a 2200, which I still have.† The 2200 never gave me any problems, but I felt restricted by the size limitation, so I upgraded to a 3800.† In the beginning, I had a little problem getting everything calibrated correctly-- so that what I saw on my screen was what I also got from the printer.† That got resolved, and it now works like a dream.† Works great with the digital negatives, too.† I've used Pictorico, DAS transparencies, and some other transparencies-- name I can't now remember-- mostly for platinum. They all worked fine.† I also just recently sold close to 50 prints to a corporate art dealer-- a huge (and unusual) bonanza of a sale for me-- but she wanted everything digitally printed.† There were both color and b&w prints.† I used Hahnemuhle paper, and that and the 3800 really did an outstanding job.† The Hahnemuhle was a bit thick for the printer, but I changed the platen gap to a wider setting, and then had no problems. † That†seemed like a marathon printing session to me, and I felt the inks just lasted forever.† I'd already used it a ton for making negatives, but I found the inks seemed to last a good long while.† The only drawback I can think of is that it doesn't take roll paper, not that I ever use it, but if one wanted to-- that would be an issue, I guess.

Diana


On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Don Bryant wrote:

Marek,

I know you mentioned that you wanted to stick with a 19 inch printer but IMO your best bet for an Epson upgrade would be an Epson 3800. Excellent quality output for digital negatives and much better ink economy compared to the 2400 or the new 1400. Even though the printer costs about $1300 that includes about $500 worth of ink which makes the printer price slightly more than the 2400. The ink carts for the 2400 are about 30% more than the 2200 and the 2400 guzzles ink with itís frequent cleaning cycles which canít be controlled by the user.

Don Bryant


From: Marek Matusz [mailto:marekmatusz@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:27 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Pinters might be OT



All
After 3 years and thousands of pages my Epson 2200 is giving me problems. I have a feeling new printer is around the corner. I have a few questios to the list. There are / were many 2200 users. What have you guys upgraded to? To everybody else, what printers are you using and maybe a short list of pros and cons. Categories that I am interested in are: diginegatives:†will it print pictorico and cheap transparency. What alt process are you using it for. What is the quality of simple B&W prints on paper. Quality of colour prints. How fast does it use the ink? Are you happy with the printer?
For now I think I will stick to 13" printers.
I do not want to flood the list so feel free to respond off line
Marek M


The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. Get it now!