Reading mode: Light Dark

Epson 2200 vs. 1280 with Media Street Gen 4 (Long Intro)

Go to last post
S

Sean Reid

Leading Member
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hello,

I'm new to this forum but was active in the Canon SLR forum a couple years back and actively participated in the Epson Inkjet list around the same time. I'm a professional photographer and currently use a color-vision profiled Epson 1160 with MediaStreet Enhanced inks through a CIS for color. Most of my clients require digital files, without prints, and I often don't print most of my personal work (I review it on screen and archive it).

As I start to prep for an exhibition next year, I'm looking at doing a lot more printing.

I've used the 1160 in preference to my 1200 because the prints are sharper and the shadows less mottled. Not too long ago, you couldn't bulk ink a 1270/1280 so they weren't even on my radar screen. Yesterday I bought a 1280 and did some initial tests. It's better than either the 1160 or the 1200. So here's my conundrum (and I have reviewed list archives to get ideas already):

Option 1: Buy a CIS for the 1280 and use Colorvision or Profile Prism to get the best possible color match from MediaStreet archival inks.

Option 2: Buy a 2200

The difference in the initial purchase price doesn't bother me much but the ink cost really does concern me. I know that Atlex.com has the 2200 inks for $9 each but I'm trying to get a sense of how the costs compare directly to 1280/bulk ink. On an intensive printing day, I could easily be making 50 11" x 14" or larger prints. Other days it will be none at all. I'm getting a fairly good color match (monitor to print) with the Generations on the 1160 but, of course, the Gamut is not yet what I'd like and the blacks (even with the beta black) are not deep enough. It's hard to know what the 1280 would look like with these inks (using Profile Prism).

Has anyone here owned and used both the 1280/Gen4/CIS combo and the 2200? Any feedback is most welcome. If I'm going to switch, I want to return the 1280 within the next couple of days.

Sean Reid
Examples of work at:

http://www.motorcycletours.com/northeastern
 
Gosh, what do you call a thread where you do all of the posting? In any case, I did some math that I think is reasonable to look at the ink costs of a 2200 vs. a 1280 with bulk inks. Let's assume for starters, that the 1280 and 2200 use a similar amount of ink per color per print. Let's also, for simplicity's sake, factor out the extra costs for the seventh ink color in the 2200.

According to a forum post by the list administrator at inkjetart.com, the 2200 cartridges reportedly each hold about 18 ml with 15 ml of that amount being useable. 15 ml x .0338146 is about 1/2 ounce which puts the cost of the 2200 ink (including cartridge) at $18 per ounce. The Generations 4 inks in bulk cost $15.00 for 4 oz. or $3.75 per ounce.

In essence then, the ink costs for the 2200 are almost five times what the ink costs are for a 1280 with CIS. Does that amount matter? I suppose it depends a lot on how many prints one makes per year. I may be making quite a few this year so it matters to me.

In order for me to finish my research and make a decision. I need to know two things:

1) On average (understanding that the light inks get used up much more quickly than the others), how many 8" x 10", as an example, prints does one typically get per 2200 cartridge. I'll look through the archives for this info. as well.

2) Has anyone (preferably someone who owns a 2200 or has seen the output first hand) been able to profile the Gen 4 inks on HWM using a 1280 so that the colors match or nearly match the output quality of the 2200.

Thanks,

Sean
 
For a year and a half I used the Epson 1270 with a CIS and Mediastreet Generations 4 ink. Now I have an Epson 2200. I have profiled both using the Eye-One spectrophotometer and 3 choices of software Eye-One Match (only acceptable with Atkinson 900+ patch test chart), Monaco Proof 3.6, and ColorVision Pro. I've created and edited profiles for dozens of different papers with each ink (and Epson OEM dye before switching to archival).

Without diving into the cost issue right away, I am far happier with the Epson 2200. 1. Glossy paper works. You might never use it, but chances are you will. 2. Neutral grays are possible--and quite easily. 3. Color gamut is better across all paper types. 4. All papers will profile without frustrating cross-overs at different gray densities. 5. It is more than twice as fast as the 1270 (not sure about the 1280/90).

Output quality / reliability and speed seem to trump cost. I do nothing like the volume you are proposing. I did get the Generations 4 ink to work acceptably on Epson Archival Matte (better than any other brand of smooth clay-coated matte at accepting high ink loads), Matte Heavy Weight, and Epson Photo Paper Glossy (somewhat glossy cast-coated paper). Profiles on RC glossies worked well--and the prints looked quite good, but you must coat or laminate the output because the ink will rub off. Note that Generations 5 works somewhat better on many, but not all RC glossies, but is hard to profile and clogs frequently (Generations 4 is relatively free from clogging if you print regularly and always cleared with normal head cleaning). Despite all of the work--and it still impressed people unfamiliar with the quality that could be obtained from digital capture & digital printing--it was still somewhat compromised.

I have not done an accurate cost estimate for Ultrachrome ink per print. You will certainly use light magenta first, then light cyan, then light gray, then magenta, then cyan, then yellow, and finally black. You will go through more than 3 light magenta cartridges per black cartridge. I can print 25 or 30 8 x 10's per light magenta cartridge. A correct cost estimate would track cumulative pages of output until the last cartridge ran out and divide that into the total cost of all cartridges replaced less the residual ink in the cartridges not yet run out. That is why the accurate cost is hard to assess. But, without much math it is overwhelmingly true that purchasing ink in 22ml cartridges can't possibly compete with buying ink in 4 oz. or quart or even gallon bottles. Not even close. I bet you are not far off in your back of the envelope calculation.

The big question is how much ink cost matters. How big a percentage of your total cost is the ink? The paper certainly costs more than the ink, even the ultrachrome. How much is your time worth? How much extra energy do you need to put in to get quality results? Do you need to offer a variety of papers? Will your customers find it reasonable that "archival" means a little less output quality? So, even if the ink is 5x more expensive (it could well be--again I haven't done a careful estimate), will that make the total print more than 20% expensive, considering all costs? If the only costs that matter are ink and paper then you might get a comparison in percentage terms like this:

bulk ultrachrome carts
paper 50% 50%
ink 10% 50%

(assume that all percentages relative to full ultrachrome + paper cost = 100%)

In this worst case, ultrachrome is 50% more expensive (100/60) than bulk ink. Realistically, you should factor in your time and the equipment depreciation. As you add other variable costs and some fixed costs, the gap decreases. Bulk must win in cost terms, but by how much?

The choice is yours. Cost does matter. Do take into account other costs besides the ink. Reailze that time (per print and in setup/tuning frustration) is a major cost. And consider output quality. You can make Gen 4 work. I don't think Gen 4 will look as good as Ultrachrome, but it can look good. I chose to value my time and satisfaction highly and minimize the issue of ink cost.
 
I can't really help here but am very interested in the replies (which will come :). I do however have some questions...

...what type of paper will you will be printing on? I love the 2200 output and I like printing on glossy paper but the combination won't happen right now, for me, on the 2200. Gotta try Pictorico glossy though.

...since you only print occasionally (although in large batches) and these are professional mission critical prints; is a few hundred dollars ink differential cost a major descion factor? If the cost differential per page becomes too high I suppose the 7600 might be a better buy. Certainly for many batches of 100+ prints this might be a cost effective solution...just a thought.

...I believe there is a Media Street CIS solution for the 2200 on the horizon that you might want to look into.

Bruce
Sean Reid said:
Gosh, what do you call a thread where you do all of the posting? In
any case, I did some math that I think is reasonable to look at the
ink costs of a 2200 vs. a 1280 with bulk inks. Let's assume for
starters, that the 1280 and 2200 use a similar amount of ink per
color per print. Let's also, for simplicity's sake, factor out the
extra costs for the seventh ink color in the 2200.

According to a forum post by the list administrator at
inkjetart.com, the 2200 cartridges reportedly each hold about 18 ml
with 15 ml of that amount being useable. 15 ml x .0338146 is
about 1/2 ounce which puts the cost of the 2200 ink (including
cartridge) at $18 per ounce. The Generations 4 inks in bulk cost
$15.00 for 4 oz. or $3.75 per ounce.

In essence then, the ink costs for the 2200 are almost five times
what the ink costs are for a 1280 with CIS. Does that amount
matter? I suppose it depends a lot on how many prints one makes
per year. I may be making quite a few this year so it matters to
me.

In order for me to finish my research and make a decision. I need
to know two things:

1) On average (understanding that the light inks get used up much
more quickly than the others), how many 8" x 10", as an example,
prints does one typically get per 2200 cartridge. I'll look
through the archives for this info. as well.

2) Has anyone (preferably someone who owns a 2200 or has seen the
output first hand) been able to profile the Gen 4 inks on HWM using
a 1280 so that the colors match or nearly match the output quality
of the 2200.

Thanks,

Sean
Click to expand...
 
I'm shocked that anyone could reliably do bulk fine-art or portrait work on the 1280 printers...Don't get me wrong...I love mine but every 3rd or 4th print suffers from blotching or some other ink artifact. I use mine only when time is more important. Otherwise, the amount of re-prints negates the cost savings of printing it myself.
 
Jack A. Zucker said:
I'm shocked that anyone could reliably do bulk fine-art or portrait
work on the 1280 printers...Don't get me wrong...I love mine but
every 3rd or 4th print suffers from blotching or some other ink
artifact. I use mine only when time is more important. Otherwise,
the amount of re-prints negates the cost savings of printing it
myself.
Click to expand...
I understand your point and from the direction of the replies so far, I'm leaning towards the 2200 despite the ink costs. In all fairness, though, I have made many Gen 4/HWM prints from a profiled 1160 and the clients were quite happy with them. Most professional work I do, however, goes to the client as a digital file. If it's a magazine or a newspaper, the TIFF files get sent straight to the art department and they make any proofs they might need. The clients (typically innkeepers and owners) may ask for a few prints from time to time but most need only a CD with the final TIFFs that then go to their web designer or graphic designer. I often do the final picture presentation on monitor. So a lot of the work never sees paper while its in my hands.

So my printer use is for clients as needed and then for my personal work. The latter can be high volume during a printing session because I often like to see several variations on paper before finalizing a print. This is no doubt a carryover from my chemical darkroom days when I printed for myself as well as other photographers.

Thanks for the reply,
 
Bruce Oudekerk said:
I can't really help here but am very interested in the replies
(which will come :). I do however have some questions...

...what type of paper will you will be printing on? I love the
2200 output and I like printing on glossy paper but the combination
won't happen right now, for me, on the 2200. Gotta try Pictorico
glossy though.]
Click to expand...
I don't use glossy papers at all. I have experimented with many papers including Somerset Enhanced, Concord Rag, etc. but my favorite is the old plain and simple Epson Heavyweight Matte.
Bruce Oudekerk said:
...since you only print occasionally (although in large batches)
and these are professional mission critical prints; is a few
hundred dollars ink differential cost a major descion factor? If
the cost differential per page becomes too high I suppose the 7600
might be a better buy. Certainly for many batches of 100+ prints
this might be a cost effective solution...just a thought.
Click to expand...
Is the cost differential important? That's what I'm figuring out. I've found that the less expensive the materials, the more a photographer is likely to experiment, make variations, etc. It's one of the many things I like about digital capture. That said, the ultimate answer may be that the extra cost is worthwhile.
Bruce Oudekerk said:
...I believe there is a Media Street CIS solution for the 2200 on
the horizon that you might want to look into.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps, but the main advantage of the 2200 is the Epson pigment inks which don't seem to be available in bulk (they aren't fools, why kill the cash cow?) I think a 2200/Gen 4 print would likely look a lot like a 1280/Gen 4 print.

Thanks for the reply,

Sean
 
Lewis Levin said:
For a year and a half I used the Epson 1270 with a CIS and
Mediastreet Generations 4 ink. Now I have an Epson 2200. I have
profiled both using the Eye-One spectrophotometer and 3 choices of
software Eye-One Match (only acceptable with Atkinson 900+ patch
test chart), Monaco Proof 3.6, and ColorVision Pro. I've created
and edited profiles for dozens of different papers with each ink
(and Epson OEM dye before switching to archival).

Without diving into the cost issue right away, I am far happier
with the Epson 2200. 1. Glossy paper works. You might never use
it, but chances are you will. 2. Neutral grays are possible--and
quite easily. 3. Color gamut is better across all paper types.
4. All papers will profile without frustrating cross-overs at
different gray densities. 5. It is more than twice as fast as the
1270 (not sure about the 1280/90).

Output quality / reliability and speed seem to trump cost. I do
nothing like the volume you are proposing. I did get the
Generations 4 ink to work acceptably on Epson Archival Matte
(better than any other brand of smooth clay-coated matte at
accepting high ink loads), Matte Heavy Weight, and Epson Photo
Paper Glossy (somewhat glossy cast-coated paper). Profiles on RC
glossies worked well--and the prints looked quite good, but you
must coat or laminate the output because the ink will rub off.
Note that Generations 5 works somewhat better on many, but not all
RC glossies, but is hard to profile and clogs frequently
(Generations 4 is relatively free from clogging if you print
regularly and always cleared with normal head cleaning). Despite
all of the work--and it still impressed people unfamiliar with the
quality that could be obtained from digital capture & digital
printing--it was still somewhat compromised.

I have not done an accurate cost estimate for Ultrachrome ink per
print. You will certainly use light magenta first, then light
cyan, then light gray, then magenta, then cyan, then yellow, and
finally black. You will go through more than 3 light magenta
cartridges per black cartridge. I can print 25 or 30 8 x 10's per
light magenta cartridge. A correct cost estimate would track
cumulative pages of output until the last cartridge ran out and
divide that into the total cost of all cartridges replaced less the
residual ink in the cartridges not yet run out. That is why the
accurate cost is hard to assess. But, without much math it is
overwhelmingly true that purchasing ink in 22ml cartridges can't
possibly compete with buying ink in 4 oz. or quart or even gallon
bottles. Not even close. I bet you are not far off in your back
of the envelope calculation.

The big question is how much ink cost matters. How big a
percentage of your total cost is the ink? The paper certainly
costs more than the ink, even the ultrachrome. How much is your
time worth? How much extra energy do you need to put in to get
quality results? Do you need to offer a variety of papers? Will
your customers find it reasonable that "archival" means a little
less output quality? So, even if the ink is 5x more expensive (it
could well be--again I haven't done a careful estimate), will that
make the total print more than 20% expensive, considering all
costs? If the only costs that matter are ink and paper then you
might get a comparison in percentage terms like this:

bulk ultrachrome carts
paper 50% 50%
ink 10% 50%

(assume that all percentages relative to full ultrachrome + paper
cost = 100%)

In this worst case, ultrachrome is 50% more expensive (100/60) than
bulk ink. Realistically, you should factor in your time and the
equipment depreciation. As you add other variable costs and some
fixed costs, the gap decreases. Bulk must win in cost terms, but
by how much?

The choice is yours. Cost does matter. Do take into account other
costs besides the ink. Reailze that time (per print and in
setup/tuning frustration) is a major cost. And consider output
quality. You can make Gen 4 work. I don't think Gen 4 will look
as good as Ultrachrome, but it can look good. I chose to value my
time and satisfaction highly and minimize the issue of ink cost.
Click to expand...
Lewis,

First off, I must thank you for one of the most thorough and intelligent replies to a post I've read in a long time. There's not much to say in reply except that you have made a very persuasive argument for the 2200 and I've just about decided to go that way. This is exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for when I posted.

Thank you,

Sean
 
Lewis Levin said:
The big question is how much ink cost matters. How big a
percentage of your total cost is the ink? The paper certainly
costs more than the ink, even the ultrachrome. How much is your
time worth? How much extra energy do you need to put in to get
quality results? Do you need to offer a variety of papers? Will
your customers find it reasonable that "archival" means a little
less output quality? So, even if the ink is 5x more expensive (it
could well be--again I haven't done a careful estimate), will that
make the total print more than 20% expensive, considering all
costs? If the only costs that matter are ink and paper then you
might get a comparison in percentage terms like this:

bulk ultrachrome carts
paper 50% 50%
ink 10% 50%

(assume that all percentages relative to full ultrachrome + paper
cost = 100%)

In this worst case, ultrachrome is 50% more expensive (100/60) than
bulk ink.
Click to expand...
This was an interesting point. I really like your analysis looking at all factors. Making a rough estimate based on your prints-per-cartridge numbers above (which I thank you for) we might say that, on average, a cartridge of 2200 ink lasts for 50 8" x 10" prints (with the light magenta and black being the two ends of the spectrum). At the best prices, seven ink cartridges would cost $63.00 for a per-print ink cost of $1.26. Fifty sheets of 8.5" x 11" Epson Archival Matt is about $15.00 for a per sheet cost of 33 cents. Overall, the per print cost would be:

Epson 2200 ink use ($1.26) + Epson Archival paper sheet (.33) = $1.59
Epson 1270 bulk ink use (.25) + sheet of same paper (.33) = 58 cents

Cost increase per print: $1.01 extra per print for Epson 2200, or in other words, the 2200 is 2.7 times as expensive to print with (considering paper and ink)

100 8" x 10" prints made with 2200= $159.00
100 8" x 10" prints made with 1280/bulk ink = $58.00

Basic ballpark, making 100 prints with the 2200 costs an extra $100.00

That's a significant cost difference but only if its apples to apples in terms of output, time spent profiling, etc. I haven't had any more clogs with Gen4 than I had with Epson dye inks but the profiling is time consuming. Then, of course, there's the quality issue.

You wrote:

"Without diving into the cost issue right away, I am far happier with the Epson 2200.

"1. Glossy paper works. You might never use it, but chances are you will."

That's an advantage.

"2. Neutral grays are possible--and quite easily."

If the 2200 can replace my quadtone printer, that's another advantage.

"3. Color gamut is better across all paper types."

That's an advantage. What I wouldn't give to see side by side samples.

"4. All papers will profile without frustrating cross-overs at different gray densities."

That's another large advantage.

"5. It is more than twice as fast as the 1270 (not sure about the 1280/90)."

That's convenient but not a big factor. I still remember when an archival silver print took 10 minutes to process (moving by tongs tray to tray) and was still wet at the end of that time. I find with digital printing that I work on something else while the printer churns away.

Still thinking, still leaning towards 2200.

Thanks,

Sean
 
Dear Sean

I'm no pro at all but I do had a bad experience with 1280 + Mediastreet Enh gen ink in the last winter.

I hate this combo - the color is beyond terrible and it won't print on anythign but matte.

Anyway, I do not have a direct experience with 1160 or 1200 but it's so true that 1280 or 2200 will do much better than that.

If i'm a pro, i would probably look at 7600 or even 5500 because of the cost of the printing.

After my long trial of different 3rd vendor ink, I came to a conclusion that Epson (or other original e.g. Canon/HP) is the best. You could buy 1280 and run the CIS by using the bulk ink from Epson 5500 cartridges (or even the ultrachrome ink).

I again, have tried all lower level profiling solution - Profiler Plus, Profile Prisma nd EZ color monaco. On the old combo that i had (1280+Epson pigment ink), I found that EZcolor monaco was my answer.

and again, even that, I still can foresee the higher level of satisfaction that I might be getting for the higher level like eye one pro ( http://www.i1color.com/ ) but I stopped at that point because I realized that I was no pro.

just my $0.02.

Kui
 
one more thing.

when I first got 2200, I ran a quick comparison between my old combo (1280+CIS+Epson pigment ink) and the 2200 did better than 1280 - not a whole lot to my eyes (I can live with my old combo) but it did, indeed, better that you can see from your naked eyes.

look at these, the upper picture is the print from 2200 and the lower is from 1280 + Epson pigment ink). Both are on the matte paper and both are profiled with EZcolor.



I don't know how much you can see from this low res sample but the real print shows better black (definitely - it was a matte black), better color, shadow details on 2200. I do not do a whole lot of B&W but I believe the light black will have a lot to do with that.

Kui
 
Kui said:
one more thing.

when I first got 2200, I ran a quick comparison between my old
combo (1280+CIS+Epson pigment ink) and the 2200 did better than
1280 - not a whole lot to my eyes (I can live with my old combo)
but it did, indeed, better that you can see from your naked eyes.

look at these, the upper picture is the print from 2200 and the
lower is from 1280 + Epson pigment ink). Both are on the matte
paper and both are profiled with EZcolor.



I don't know how much you can see from this low res sample but the
real print shows better black (definitely - it was a matte black),
better color, shadow details on 2200. I do not do a whole lot of
B&W but I believe the light black will have a lot to do with that.

Kui
Click to expand...
Kui,

Thanks for the post. I can clearly see a difference even in these JPEGs. You've also peaked my curiosity, how were you getting Epson archival inks for a CIS? Which ink was it? What printer was it intended for? Did it come in bottles?

Thanks,

Sean
 
Kui said:
Dear Sean

I'm no pro at all but I do had a bad experience with 1280 +
Mediastreet Enh gen ink in the last winter.

I hate this combo - the color is beyond terrible and it won't print
on anythign but matte.

Anyway, I do not have a direct experience with 1160 or 1200 but
it's so true that 1280 or 2200 will do much better than that.

If i'm a pro, i would probably look at 7600 or even 5500 because of
the cost of the printing.

After my long trial of different 3rd vendor ink, I came to a
conclusion that Epson (or other original e.g. Canon/HP) is the
best. You could buy 1280 and run the CIS by using the bulk ink from
Epson 5500 cartridges (or even the ultrachrome ink).

I again, have tried all lower level profiling solution - Profiler
Plus, Profile Prisma nd EZ color monaco. On the old combo that i
had (1280+Epson pigment ink), I found that EZcolor monaco was my
answer.

and again, even that, I still can foresee the higher level of
satisfaction that I might be getting for the higher level like eye
one pro ( http://www.i1color.com/ ) but I stopped at that point
because I realized that I was no pro.

just my $0.02.

Kui
Click to expand...
Worth more than 2 cents for sure, this is great information. I'm going to look into the Epson archival ink for the 1160/CIS combo I'm keeping. I still think I'll get the 2200 as well and use it for more critical printing.

Thanks,

Sean
 
Just did some quick math on the feasabillity of using the Chrome Inks in a CIS by tapping the ink in 9600 printer catridges. The catridges hold 220 ml. or 7.4 oz. and cost $112.00 each.

Epson 2200 ink catridges: $18/oz.
Gen 4 in bulk: $3.75/oz.
9600 catridges: $15.00/oz.

Not worth the hassle really for the small cost difference. If only Epson would sell the magic Ultrachrome Inks in 4oz. bottles but they know better (financially) than to do that.

So...I'm selling my second 1160 and a 1200, returning the 1280 and buying a 2200. Appreciate all the advice from listmembers.

Sean
 
I didn’t want to obfuscate the purchase issue with new directions but now that you’ve made a decision I’ll throw this into the fray. Hope it might be interesting or helpful.

I was at the Hunts expo in Boston a few weeks ago and talking to the Illford guy about their papers and the 2200 (They have/will be offering some very nice products). He was a 2200 owner and stated that he always printed at 1440 dpi because there wasn’t any difference at 2880 and it was significantly faster. I think he is both right and wrong. I spent the rest of the weekend printing from a brand new 2200. At 1440 the prints were as beautiful as they were at 2880. It wasn’t until I got home and viewed them under an illuminated magnifying glass that I could see why I liked the 2880 prints a little better. There IS more information on the print; it’s just difficult to see with the naked eye. You very well might have better close vision than me but regardless, the level of detail the 2200 is capable of is simply astounding.

I’m also astounded by the 2200’s ability to render delicate light details. As a former darkroom photographer you will especially appreciate this. I tried to print pictures with textural and non-textural “white” objects in them. I’m assuming that the “light black” ink is at play here as I can see that it is being used when viewed under a 30X microscope. (I like to try and understand what I’m seeing…a fools errand really) I also saw excellent shadow detail in some prints but ran out of time (and nearly out of ink)

Bruce
Sean Reid said:
Just did some quick math on the feasabillity of using the Chrome
Inks in a CIS by tapping the ink in 9600 printer catridges. The
catridges hold 220 ml. or 7.4 oz. and cost $112.00 each.

Epson 2200 ink catridges: $18/oz.
Gen 4 in bulk: $3.75/oz.
9600 catridges: $15.00/oz.

Not worth the hassle really for the small cost difference. If only
Epson would sell the magic Ultrachrome Inks in 4oz. bottles but
they know better (financially) than to do that.

So...I'm selling my second 1160 and a 1200, returning the 1280 and
buying a 2200. Appreciate all the advice from listmembers.

Sean
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Oudekerk said:
I didn’t want to obfuscate the purchase issue with new directions
but now that you’ve made a decision I’ll throw this into the fray.
Hope it might be interesting or helpful.

I was at the Hunts expo in Boston a few weeks ago and talking to
the Illford guy about their papers and the 2200 (They have/will be
offering some very nice products). He was a 2200 owner and stated
that he always printed at 1440 dpi because there wasn’t any
difference at 2880 and it was significantly faster. I think he is
both right and wrong. I spent the rest of the weekend printing
from a brand new 2200. At 1440 the prints were as beautiful as
they were at 2880. It wasn’t until I got home and viewed them
under an illuminated magnifying glass that I could see why I liked
the 2880 prints a little better. There IS more information on the
print; it’s just difficult to see with the naked eye. You very
well might have better close vision than me but regardless, the
level of detail the 2200 is capable of is simply astounding.

I’m also astounded by the 2200’s ability to render delicate light
details. As a former darkroom photographer you will especially
appreciate this. I tried to print pictures with textural and
non-textural “white” objects in them. I’m assuming that the
“light black” ink is at play here as I can see that it is being
used when viewed under a 30X microscope. (I like to try and
understand what I’m seeing…a fools errand really) I also saw
excellent shadow detail in some prints but ran out of time (and
nearly out of ink)

Bruce
Click to expand...
Bruce,

Thanks for the post. All around, this printer has just gotten rave reviews. I'm excited to try it. Put an 1160 and 1200 on E-Bay today to start paring down. By the way, I also like to understand what I'm seeing.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Hi Bruce, a lot of people including myself has agreed that the 2880 dpi setting on 2200 is better than 1440 and that differences can be detected with naked eyes which is different from 1280-2880/1440 dpi. For 1280, you won't really see the differences without the loupe magnification.

Another nice feature is the 2200 let you print 2880 in a high speed mode, so the waiting won't be too bad.

Now for Sean.

I did get my bulk Epson pigment ink from the cartridge for 5500. I bought it for $39.95 for each color (from atlex.com). Each black/yellow cartridge will give you 110 ml or close to 4oz while the magenta/cyan will give you 55 ml of each regular and photo version.

Anyway, your previous calculation can be cheaper. The price for 7600's 220 ml cartridge could be obtained at around $85.xx (currently, atlex.com does't have them yet). The 110 ml size can be obtained at $49.95 from atlex.com. It's true that this is not cheap when you compare it to 3rd party pigment but there it's.

You also have to include the cost of the CIS unit which is sold at a ridiculous price. That's why I made my own CIS.

Anyway, talking about using ultrachrome pigment ink on 1280- you won't be able to use the 7th color which I believe it's the key factor of the improved gamut - the light black.

And again, using all these tricks are not hassles free. There will many thing that you have to go through. So after all, may be 7600 or even 2200 will do the job for you just fine.

Kui
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top