My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Started Jun 20, 2005 | Discussions thread
Vernon D Rainwater Forum Pro • Posts: 13,490
Re: My new 2400 compared to my 2200

Ira Blumberg wrote:

I just got a 2400 that I ordered about a week ago. No one in my
area (Sililcon Valley) had received even the first shipment of
these printers and when I found a reasonably reputable east coast
mail order house offering in stock units for $829 & free shipping I
gave up on local vendors and ordered.

I have had a 2200 almost since they first appeared which feels like
about 2.5 years. I had a real love/hate relationship with the 2200.
I got it for its long lasting prints and in that regard, I have not
been disappointed. Compared to all my previous ink jet printers,
the 2200 produced water-proof and long lasting prints on a wide
variety of papers.

Unfortunately, the profiles that Epson shipped initially were
terrible. As a result, I had a magenta cast on almost everything I
printed. Also, the metamerism was a pain. As a result, I got to
invest in the Eye-One Display profiling system. This was a big help
and really straightened out the color cast problems with my 2200.
However, nothing really fixes the metamerism, so I just lived with
it. By the way, the later released 2200 profiles were a huge
improvement over the initial release. I compared them to my custom
profiles and other than getting a bit more shadow detail in my
profiles, I couldn't see much difference. Finally, I was always
very disappointed in the images printed on glossy paper. I tried a
number and several gave better results than PGPP, none were
satisfactory. I ended up focusing on Premium Luster and got good
results with it.

When I saw the initial reviews of the 2400 I got interested for
several reasons. First, while I have not done any B&W since my
darkroom days, I am interested, but never tried it due to all the
problems I had read about with ink jet printing. Second, the
reduced metamerism sounded promising. Third, the reduced bronzing
suggested that glossy prints might actually look good. Fourth, I am
a sucker for the newest gadgets

Well, after 24 full hours of ownership, I have the following
observations.

1. Color prints on Premium Luster printed on the 2400 look quite
similar to those printed on the 2200 with a good profile. However,
the 2400 prints looked very good even with the standard Epson
profiles. Also, the 2400 prints showed far less metamerism. I was
surprised by how good the 2200 color prints looked. I was actually
expecting the 2400 to be much better, but realized that there was
not too much better possible. I am however, very pleased with the
reduced metamerism. So far, I have seen just a hint of hue change
under some nasty flourescent light, but no big changes going from
incandescent to day light.

2. There is no comparison between glossy prints. The 2400 prints
look like really glossy prints. On the 2200, glossy prints came out
muted and muddy, even with a custom profile. The 2400 has really
fixed this problem. I have to look very hard to find any evidence
of gloss differential. Just looking at the prints in a normal
manner, I can't see any gloss problems.

3. General operation is much smoother on the 2400. On the 2200,
Epson suggested feeding only 1 sheet of photo paper at a time. This
is a pain if you have lots of sheets to print as you have to load
each.

Ira, your comment above are interesting especially regarding the newer printer as well as "regarding Epson Suggestion for the 2200"...

I have used my 2200 for over 2 years and I have never read any thing regarding the "feeding single sheets" -- except for VERY thick media..

Perhaps you may be referring to this being recommended when using "GLOSSY PAPERS". Most of my printed photos are on 8 1/2 x 11 and 13 x 19 inch Photo paper, therefore; I don't like Glossy and as a result I have not used Glossy since the "wet Darkroom days" and I now use ONLY the epson Matte Photo Papers and the Matte Black ink. I assume Glossy would be OK for the smaller photos such as 4 x 6 inch "snap shot" type photos.

I get very good results when printing Black & White photos on the 2200. Many of my B/W images are from scanned B/W Medium Format Negatives and 35mm Negatives and some slides.

Have fun with the new printer.
My Regards, Vernon....

Also, my 2200 has gotten difficult recently and frequently
refused to feed even a single sheet or ends up grabbing it at an
angle. By contrast, the 2400 is capable of dealing with a whole
stack of photo paper and feeds it very smoothly. This is a
significant improvement.

4. I have not tried any B&W, so I can't comment on that.

5. Is the 2400 a must have upgrade from the 2200? It depends, but
likely probably not. It is clearly better in every way that I can
see (other than lacking the auto paper cutter for roll paper, but I
never used that). However, if you want to print color on semigloss
paper (I never use matt, so I can't comment on that either) it does
seem that the 2200 with a good profile can do a pretty good job. If
printing glossy is really important, the 2400 is much better, but
perhaps the 1800 is an even better choice for glossy. Nonetheless,
if you don't mind spending another $850, the 2400 is a nice upgrade.

Ira

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow