Jerremy,
That's a good suggestion. The 1280 is a good alternative to the 2200 and
has proven to give great results for inkjet negatives. The Dye based inks also
give some additional UV density above the Ultrachromes of the 2200.
Compared to the R800, the 1280 gives you a larger print area since it can
handle the 13 x 19 papers and OHP FIlm. Though the R800 has a smaller picoliter
dot size, and claims a 5760 dpi x 1440 dpi, I do not believe that this is a
true advantage yet when printing digital negatives. The optimum file
resolution is still 360 ppi for all three printers.
I would second Jeremy's suggestion on going for the 1280.
Mark Nelson
Purchase the book @
Precision Digital Negatives
Credit Card & Paypal now accepted
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
In a message dated 12/9/04 2:55:54 PM, jeremydmoore@charter.net writes:
> You might also try looking for an Epson 1280 or 1290. This is an earlier
> dye based (as opposed to the Epson 2100's ultrachrome pigment inks)
> Epson printer that will print up to the A3Plus size. I just picked one
> up for $200US.
>
> Jeremy
>
Received on Thu Dec 9 15:14:39 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/03/05-09:29:43 AM Z CST