Epson Wake UP!!

I have been very happy with my 1280 and epson borderless paper selections but am very intriqued by new HP and canon offerings. HP amenities like LCD preview and card readers are very user friendly. Canon's new print head, speed, and styling are impressive. The forum's seem to indicate that the pigment based epson 2200 is very tempermental and difficult to set up. Is it time to jump ship to the i950 or will epson come up with an alternative in the next 6 months?

Peter Nishan said:

I have been very happy with my 1280 and epson borderless paper
selections but am very intriqued by new HP and canon offerings. HP
amenities like LCD preview and card readers are very user friendly.
Canon's new print head, speed, and styling are impressive. The
forum's seem to indicate that the pigment based epson 2200 is very
tempermental and difficult to set up. Is it time to jump ship to
the i950 or will epson come up with an alternative in the next 6
months?

Click to expand...

The 220 is NOT temperamental or difficult to set up or use. Most of those who complain don't know how to use color management. We can't really blame them, however. Neither Epson or any other manufacturer really tells how this works.

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com

Agreed, Not difficult or tempermental. I love this 2200 ( sold the 1280 to a friend).

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

The 2200 is a great printer and easy to use.

But, and this is a very big BUT for a 1280 user, the 2200 is incapable of making a true glossy print! The closest you can come to glossy is on Pictorico paper and even on that paper there will be slight bronzing.

Problem is, since you are using pigment based inks, they layer on the surface and kill the high-gloss finish of SPGP. This causes bronzing.

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the 2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Hehehe.
Same folks loved the 1280 and SPG. They raved about the high gloss.

Their preferences changed when they got a printer totally incapable of producing a true gloss.

There are many threads addressing this problem. Extensive testing has been done but there are no fixes. Someone recently sent me some 2200 prints on Pictorico to critique. They are pretty good but still nothing like the 1280 can produce. There is slight bronzing from any angle.

I still print on my 1280. I sold my 2200 within days of receiving it because of the problem with glossy prints. I was VERY upset that none of the high-powered reviews uncovered the issue.

I wonder what the heck they were looking at.

Best
Howard

Peter Nishan said:

I have been very happy with my 1280 and epson borderless paper
selections but am very intriqued by new HP and canon offerings. HP
amenities like LCD preview and card readers are very user friendly.
Canon's new print head, speed, and styling are impressive. The
forum's seem to indicate that the pigment based epson 2200 is very
tempermental and difficult to set up. Is it time to jump ship to
the i950 or will epson come up with an alternative in the next 6
months?

Click to expand...

Howard said:

The 2200 is a great printer and easy to use.
But, and this is a very big BUT for a 1280 user, the 2200 is
incapable of making a true glossy print! The closest you can come
to glossy is on Pictorico paper and even on that paper there will
be slight bronzing.
Problem is, since you are using pigment based inks, they layer on
the surface and kill the high-gloss finish of SPGP. This causes
bronzing.

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Hehehe.
Same folks loved the 1280 and SPG. They raved about the high gloss.

Their preferences changed when they got a printer totally incapable
of producing a true gloss.

There are many threads addressing this problem. Extensive testing
has been done but there are no fixes. Someone recently sent me some
2200 prints on Pictorico to critique. They are pretty good but
still nothing like the 1280 can produce. There is slight bronzing
from any angle.
I still print on my 1280. I sold my 2200 within days of receiving
it because of the problem with glossy prints. I was VERY upset that
none of the high-powered reviews uncovered the issue.

I wonder what the heck they were looking at.

Best
Howard

Click to expand...

Howard, we're 'chuckling' AT you, not with you. Anyone who'd sell a printer 'within days' has not bothered to learn to use it. If you prefer prints that fade in 5 years to ones that last 70-90, then go for it! I sell my work, each print carries my reputation. I can't have someone return a blank paper with my signiture in the corner asking where the photograph they paid me $100 for went! What can I do....tell them it's now a minimalist painting? LOL Under glass, in a mat and frame, gloss and matte look the same except for the texture you get from art papers like Velvet and Watercolor.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com

Chris and Howard:

I've got to wade into this discussion because I agree with Howard. I've had a 1270 for two years and am really pleased with the prints (premium glossy, matte and luster). But I LOVE the gloss of premium glossy. This past fall I was one of the first to take delivery of a 2200 -- had been smacking my lips to get it ever since it was announced. You can't imagine my disappointment when the first glossy print rolled out of the printer -- the bronzing effect was very bothersome. I then spent the next four weeks trying out every paper and printer setting combo I could think of, buying sample packs of paper from virtually every manufacturer, using a test print downloaded from one of the digital camera web sites. The closest I got to an acceptable glossy print was on Pictorico, but it was only "fair," not even good. Matte prints were gorgeous. But I sold the printer on eBay for about what I had in it (but threw in extra ink cartridges). Now I'm back (and happy) with my 1270.

Chris, I understand your view, but I ask you: what is the value of a long lasting print (glossy) which is not particularly admirable (due to the bronzing effect) in the first place? IMHO, I'll take the shorter lasting, well-printed photo. Granted, I'm not selling them, so I'm not in the pickle that Chris is in.

That's my view, folks.

Bob

Christopher Crawford said:

Howard said:

The 2200 is a great printer and easy to use.
But, and this is a very big BUT for a 1280 user, the 2200 is
incapable of making a true glossy print! The closest you can come
to glossy is on Pictorico paper and even on that paper there will
be slight bronzing.
Problem is, since you are using pigment based inks, they layer on
the surface and kill the high-gloss finish of SPGP. This causes
bronzing.

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Hehehe.
Same folks loved the 1280 and SPG. They raved about the high gloss.

Their preferences changed when they got a printer totally incapable
of producing a true gloss.

There are many threads addressing this problem. Extensive testing
has been done but there are no fixes. Someone recently sent me some
2200 prints on Pictorico to critique. They are pretty good but
still nothing like the 1280 can produce. There is slight bronzing
from any angle.
I still print on my 1280. I sold my 2200 within days of receiving
it because of the problem with glossy prints. I was VERY upset that
none of the high-powered reviews uncovered the issue.

I wonder what the heck they were looking at.

Best
Howard

Click to expand...

Howard, we're 'chuckling' AT you, not with you. Anyone who'd sell
a printer 'within days' has not bothered to learn to use it. If
you prefer prints that fade in 5 years to ones that last 70-90,
then go for it! I sell my work, each print carries my reputation.
I can't have someone return a blank paper with my signiture in the
corner asking where the photograph they paid me $100 for went!
What can I do....tell them it's now a minimalist painting? LOL
Under glass, in a mat and frame, gloss and matte look the same
except for the texture you get from art papers like Velvet and
Watercolor.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com

Click to expand...

I have the 960 which is same res as 2200, but dye inks like the 1280. I wish they made a large format version of the 960. These prints are so much sharper and less dots then my 1270. The shadow areas and hair look like photos.
Rob C

BobG said:

I've got to wade into this discussion because I agree with Howard.
I've had a 1270 for two years and am really pleased with the prints
(premium glossy, matte and luster). But I LOVE the gloss of
premium glossy. This past fall I was one of the first to take
delivery of a 2200 -- had been smacking my lips to get it ever
since it was announced. You can't imagine my disappointment when
the first glossy print rolled out of the printer -- the bronzing
effect was very bothersome. I then spent the next four weeks trying
out every paper and printer setting combo I could think of, buying
sample packs of paper from virtually every manufacturer, using a
test print downloaded from one of the digital camera web sites. The
closest I got to an acceptable glossy print was on Pictorico, but
it was only "fair," not even good. Matte prints were gorgeous. But
I sold the printer on eBay for about what I had in it (but threw in
extra ink cartridges). Now I'm back (and happy) with my 1270.

Chris, I understand your view, but I ask you: what is the value of
a long lasting print (glossy) which is not particularly admirable
(due to the bronzing effect) in the first place? IMHO, I'll take
the shorter lasting, well-printed photo. Granted, I'm not selling
them, so I'm not in the pickle that Chris is in.

That's my view, folks.

Bob

Christopher Crawford said:

Howard said:

The 2200 is a great printer and easy to use.
But, and this is a very big BUT for a 1280 user, the 2200 is
incapable of making a true glossy print! The closest you can come
to glossy is on Pictorico paper and even on that paper there will
be slight bronzing.
Problem is, since you are using pigment based inks, they layer on
the surface and kill the high-gloss finish of SPGP. This causes
bronzing.

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Hehehe.
Same folks loved the 1280 and SPG. They raved about the high gloss.

Their preferences changed when they got a printer totally incapable
of producing a true gloss.

There are many threads addressing this problem. Extensive testing
has been done but there are no fixes. Someone recently sent me some
2200 prints on Pictorico to critique. They are pretty good but
still nothing like the 1280 can produce. There is slight bronzing
from any angle.
I still print on my 1280. I sold my 2200 within days of receiving
it because of the problem with glossy prints. I was VERY upset that
none of the high-powered reviews uncovered the issue.

I wonder what the heck they were looking at.

Best
Howard

Click to expand...

Howard, we're 'chuckling' AT you, not with you. Anyone who'd sell
a printer 'within days' has not bothered to learn to use it. If
you prefer prints that fade in 5 years to ones that last 70-90,
then go for it! I sell my work, each print carries my reputation.
I can't have someone return a blank paper with my signiture in the
corner asking where the photograph they paid me $100 for went!
What can I do....tell them it's now a minimalist painting? LOL
Under glass, in a mat and frame, gloss and matte look the same
except for the texture you get from art papers like Velvet and
Watercolor.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dear Bob,

Precisely my feeling. I love the high gloss prints my 1280 produces! I do not like the product of the 2200 at all on glossy paper.

You hit the nail on the head....there is not much value, FOR ME, to have an archival 'glossy' print that has bronzing and is so very obviously an 'inkjet' print.

I am not a person who needs weeks and weeks of testing to evaluate a printer. When I got my 2200, I made prints on about 10 diiffierent papers.

It was clearly evident immediately that the printer layered the inks on the surface and was not capable of producing the desired gloss. It was a simple process but NOT a hasty one.

While Chris 'chuckles AT me' I happily view my high gloss prints with a drop-dead gorgeous color gamut.(The 2200's color gamut is somewhat cramped relative to the 1280)

My prints are kept in albums and do not fade at all.......at least not evidence yet of fading.

I'm not selling prints either, but most of the friends I print for want the high-gloss.

Regards
Howard

BobG said:

I've got to wade into this discussion because I agree with Howard.
I've had a 1270 for two years and am really pleased with the prints
(premium glossy, matte and luster). But I LOVE the gloss of
premium glossy. This past fall I was one of the first to take
delivery of a 2200 -- had been smacking my lips to get it ever
since it was announced. You can't imagine my disappointment when
the first glossy print rolled out of the printer -- the bronzing
effect was very bothersome. I then spent the next four weeks trying
out every paper and printer setting combo I could think of, buying
sample packs of paper from virtually every manufacturer, using a
test print downloaded from one of the digital camera web sites. The
closest I got to an acceptable glossy print was on Pictorico, but
it was only "fair," not even good. Matte prints were gorgeous. But
I sold the printer on eBay for about what I had in it (but threw in
extra ink cartridges). Now I'm back (and happy) with my 1270.

Chris, I understand your view, but I ask you: what is the value of
a long lasting print (glossy) which is not particularly admirable
(due to the bronzing effect) in the first place? IMHO, I'll take
the shorter lasting, well-printed photo. Granted, I'm not selling
them, so I'm not in the pickle that Chris is in.

That's my view, folks.

Bob

Christopher Crawford said:

Howard said:

The 2200 is a great printer and easy to use.
But, and this is a very big BUT for a 1280 user, the 2200 is
incapable of making a true glossy print! The closest you can come
to glossy is on Pictorico paper and even on that paper there will
be slight bronzing.
Problem is, since you are using pigment based inks, they layer on
the surface and kill the high-gloss finish of SPGP. This causes
bronzing.

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Hehehe.
Same folks loved the 1280 and SPG. They raved about the high gloss.

Their preferences changed when they got a printer totally incapable
of producing a true gloss.

There are many threads addressing this problem. Extensive testing
has been done but there are no fixes. Someone recently sent me some
2200 prints on Pictorico to critique. They are pretty good but
still nothing like the 1280 can produce. There is slight bronzing
from any angle.
I still print on my 1280. I sold my 2200 within days of receiving
it because of the problem with glossy prints. I was VERY upset that
none of the high-powered reviews uncovered the issue.

I wonder what the heck they were looking at.

Best
Howard

Click to expand...

Howard, we're 'chuckling' AT you, not with you. Anyone who'd sell
a printer 'within days' has not bothered to learn to use it. If
you prefer prints that fade in 5 years to ones that last 70-90,
then go for it! I sell my work, each print carries my reputation.
I can't have someone return a blank paper with my signiture in the
corner asking where the photograph they paid me $100 for went!
What can I do....tell them it's now a minimalist painting? LOL
Under glass, in a mat and frame, gloss and matte look the same
except for the texture you get from art papers like Velvet and
Watercolor.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Christopher Crawford said:

Under glass, in a mat and frame, gloss and matte look the same
except for the texture you get from art papers like Velvet and
Watercolor.

Click to expand...

Personally I think that matte looks better under glass than glossy.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ken_5

I have the 1270, and recently ordered the 2200. The archival properties of the new inkset has been something I've been seeking for years, as the primary failure of inkjet has always been it's durability, as far as the professional & fine art markets are concerned.

Certainly the gloss of the 1270 print is a beautiful thing. But imagine if Edward Curtis had used watercolor in his photogravures instead of pigment ink, to get more 'tonality' in the shadows (assuming this might have been possible)? There would be nothing left today.

I certainly am not comparing my work to his, nor the interest that history might have. But I do sell my work, and have never felt that I could sell an Epson print because of it's short life. The technological limitations of each eras' photographic tools has an inevitable impact on the look & aesthetics of the work. But I feel that longevity is a paramount concern if we want our work to have any value as an art piece.

I've also found a number of ways to enhance the digital file to overcome limitations in detail & gamut found in matte & semigloss papers, and pigment inksets. It can be done, but only if the will to do so is there. You have to want to make a product that will last.

In fairness, I continue to use my 1270 to create a 'reference' print, to show the most that my file has to give. I then proceed to modify it so that I get 95% of that image on an archival print.
--
Phil Heffernan/PHX

Howard said:

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Click to expand...

I have never liked the really high gloss. Even when I was shooting film, I preferred matte (semi-gloss). I can sort of understand where glossy buffs are coming from, though, with the "bronzing", because whenever I try to look at a really glossy photo, I have to shift it all around to try to cut the glare on it; once you're used to shifting your photos around to see the whole photo a bit at a time through the glare, you're still shifting the pigment prints around out of habit -- so the "bronzing" jumps out at you!

Believe it or not, Howard, some of us truly prefer non-glossy prints and like the velvety prints we get from other media. I also have original oils and watercolors on my walls...and prefer the watercolors because there's no shine to interrupt my viewing.

--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, PBase supporter

Tricia said:

Howard said:

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, Howard, some of us truly prefer non-glossy

Tricia said:

prints and like the velvety prints we get from other media

Click to expand...

Yep. Tastes and temperaments vary widely. I, too, prefer matte for B&W

prints. I did not mean to imply that there aren't folks who truly prefer semigloss or lutre, or pearl or matte. There are such people.

The point I was making is that several of my friends who used to rave about the gorgeous glossy prints they were getting out of the 1280 now profess to prefer the semi-gloss look of the 2200....a look that earlier they disliked.

One person was honest enuf to admit while laughing that she had no choice since the 2200 could not produce a glossy print.

Bottom line: Epson can and should come up with a paper that will produce better glossy results on the 2200. They need to be held accountable, imo.

Clearly, I'm in the minority though, most people are thrilled with their 2200s.

Regards
Howard

Tricia said:

I have never liked the really high gloss. Even when I was shooting
film, I preferred matte (semi-gloss). I can sort of understand
where glossy buffs are coming from, though, with the "bronzing",
because whenever I try to look at a really glossy photo, I have to
shift it all around to try to cut the glare on it; once you're used
to shifting your photos around to see the whole photo a bit at a
time through the glare, you're still shifting the pigment prints
around out of habit -- so the "bronzing" jumps out at you!

Believe it or not, Howard, some of us truly prefer non-glossy
prints and like the velvety prints we get from other media. I also
have original oils and watercolors on my walls...and prefer the
watercolors because there's no shine to interrupt my viewing.

--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, PBase supporter

Click to expand...

Howard,

While I too grabbed a 2200 as soon as I could lay my hands on one, I harbored no illusions about its ability (or lack thereof) to handle glossy prints. The 2000 was not just noted, but infamous, for bronzing and metamerism. I watched the previews and reviews of the 2100 and 2200, I paid special attention, and noted in several reviews (Photo I springs to mind) that some bronzing still occurred.

While this was unfortunate, and I was just as disappointed as anyone when it was learned that the 2200 would be de-contented (no gray balancer or CD print capacity), I still wanted the archival quality and the matte printing capability (I really like the Watercolor paper). Yet, I personally do like glossy prints, and for this reason, I kept my 875DC around.

Howard said:

Tricia said:

Howard said:

The best you can get is more of a semi-gloss finish.

As you know, the 1280 produces a gorgeous Ciibachrome type high
gloss with ease.

I chuckle to myself because I keep hearing from friends who use the
2200 that they 'prefer' a non-glossy finish.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, Howard, some of us truly prefer non-glossy

Howard49715 said:

prints and like the velvety prints we get from other media

Click to expand...

Yep. Tastes and temperaments vary widely. I, too, prefer matte for B&W
prints. I did not mean to imply that there aren't folks who truly
prefer semigloss or lutre, or pearl or matte. There are such people.

The point I was making is that several of my friends who used to
rave about the gorgeous glossy prints they were getting out of the
1280 now profess to prefer the semi-gloss look of the 2200....a
look that earlier they disliked.

One person was honest enuf to admit while laughing that she had no
choice since the 2200 could not produce a glossy print.

Bottom line: Epson can and should come up with a paper that will
produce better glossy results on the 2200. They need to be held
accountable, imo.

Clearly, I'm in the minority though, most people are thrilled with
their 2200s.

Regards
Howard

Howard49715 said:

I have never liked the really high gloss. Even when I was shooting
film, I preferred matte (semi-gloss). I can sort of understand
where glossy buffs are coming from, though, with the "bronzing",
because whenever I try to look at a really glossy photo, I have to
shift it all around to try to cut the glare on it; once you're used
to shifting your photos around to see the whole photo a bit at a
time through the glare, you're still shifting the pigment prints
around out of habit -- so the "bronzing" jumps out at you!

Believe it or not, Howard, some of us truly prefer non-glossy
prints and like the velvety prints we get from other media. I also
have original oils and watercolors on my walls...and prefer the
watercolors because there's no shine to interrupt my viewing.

--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, PBase supporter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots.

Favorite Quote: 'Never let the quest for the Perfect become the enemy of the Excellent'

hrm.

well i think i have some insight for both camps here. my job is to sell you guys this stuff. i deal with hobbyists, amateurs, people who think they are pro's, and the real deal pro's.

the hobbyists and amateurs cant afford a 700 printer, so their choice is obvious. most of them stick with glossy prints because it's what they used to get at wal mart, and with the 8x carriage printes.

people who think they are pro's buy the 1280's and only use high gloss paper.

the real deal pro's use 2200's or 7600's, depending on their budget. they use only the pearl(true matte), enhanced matte or fine art papers.

why?

pearl - pleasing to skin tones, hard to duplicate on a photocopier because of all the paper imperfections

enhanced matte - smooth finish, lack of gloss pulls you into the image instead of reflecting the bathroom light back at you. lack of gloss makes these prints outperform any gloss print under glass

fine art papers - sharpest and whitest paper you can possibly buy. looks the absolute best under glass. the textured surface gives your prints a depth that you generally lose from using small sensor sized digital cameras and slr's

so there you have it. my personal choice? i've always preferred enhanced matte type paper, even on first my 870, then 1280. but i could never use it because the blacks were garbage. this forced me to use smooth pearl on everything. now i've got a 2200 and use enhanced matte. my books look now 3 to 4 times better than ever before.

guys, you can complain about the 2200's lack of gloss (please, i dare yo uto find a high closs roll of paper for a 7600 and 9600..the pro's making money off them printers dont want gloss), but i complain about the 1280's lack of decent blacks on matte and inability to render me a neutral black and white without dedicating it to some third party easy to clog cis.

Hi Jeff

I am not that hung up on glossy either. I am also not hung up on B&W either. I shoot color and use it as a hoppy as well as in my work place. Which is the hotel and restaurant buisness. I am concerned about color gamut. Does the 2200 produce color depth and gamut as well as the 960 does. I do not compare the 1280 becuase of its lower res compared to the 2200. The 960 is a better printer to compare ink vs dye.(yes I know it is smaller) I have love the output of my 960 on priemium luster and colorlife paper. Behind glass or plastic archival they look great. I am just wondering how the two would compare image wise and color wise only. I am looking to purchase a 2200, but also wonder if the next model is coming this spring.
Thanks
Rob C

Jeff Graeber said:

hrm.

well i think i have some insight for both camps here. my job is to
sell you guys this stuff. i deal with hobbyists, amateurs, people
who think they are pro's, and the real deal pro's.

the hobbyists and amateurs cant afford a 700 printer, so their
choice is obvious. most of them stick with glossy prints because
it's what they used to get at wal mart, and with the 8x carriage
printes.

people who think they are pro's buy the 1280's and only use high
gloss paper.

the real deal pro's use 2200's or 7600's, depending on their
budget. they use only the pearl(true matte), enhanced matte or fine
art papers.

why?
pearl - pleasing to skin tones, hard to duplicate on a photocopier
because of all the paper imperfections

enhanced matte - smooth finish, lack of gloss pulls you into the
image instead of reflecting the bathroom light back at you. lack of
gloss makes these prints outperform any gloss print under glass

fine art papers - sharpest and whitest paper you can possibly buy.
looks the absolute best under glass. the textured surface gives
your prints a depth that you generally lose from using small sensor
sized digital cameras and slr's

so there you have it. my personal choice? i've always preferred
enhanced matte type paper, even on first my 870, then 1280. but i
could never use it because the blacks were garbage. this forced me
to use smooth pearl on everything. now i've got a 2200 and use
enhanced matte. my books look now 3 to 4 times better than ever
before.

guys, you can complain about the 2200's lack of gloss (please, i
dare yo uto find a high closs roll of paper for a 7600 and
9600..the pro's making money off them printers dont want gloss),
but i complain about the 1280's lack of decent blacks on matte and
inability to render me a neutral black and white without dedicating
it to some third party easy to clog cis.

Click to expand...

With a little tweaking, my 2200 prints are as colorful, if not better, than the one's I was producing from the 1280. I, too, prefer matte finish. Once the prints is behind glass, the gloss people seem to miss is there. I don't have a 960 to compare.

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

I received my 2200 the week they came out & have been nursing it along carefully. I can print almost as well on it as on a 1270/80, but as someone said before, I tend to make a 'reference print' on the older printer & then see how close I can come to it with the 2200. I use the 2200 because it's the only way I can claim to be making 'archival' prints. But I hope Epson will awaken to a number of problems.

1. Color casts: The numerous threads about magenta/green casts indicate that quite a few people (who are presumably not all inexperienced or stupid) are having trouble, and I genuinely wonder why. A friend who teaches Photoshop, calibrates monitors, & profiles printers has trouble getting consistent results for clients. Is it just the complexity of the printer interface that leads people to make mistakes? Why do some users have trouble with green casts, others magenta? Do both sets of drivers, PC & Mac, just as they should to the No Color Management option?

2. Drivers: Why doesn't the OS X driver do everything that the OS 9 driver can? Ian Lyons has pointed out that there's a bug in the OS 9 driver that comes with the 2100 (but apparently not the 2200). When do things like this get fixed?

3. Profiles: I've found that Epson's own profiles produce worse results with the 2200 than did their profiles for the 1270/80. So I've been making ColorVision Profiler RGB profiles, which are better. But I find it's awfully hard, with the 'residual metamerism' - nowhere near as bad as the 2000P/7500, but still a problem - to work around a slight green cast of the lower zones & or slight magenta cast of the high zones, depending on viewing light.

4. B&W: I'm especially unhappy with the results in black-and-white, & keep wondering if I could do better, were I allowed to have the Gray Balancer. I thought that the 2200 would produce results almost as good as Piezo printing, by using its two black inks. But Epson advises against using Black only - apparently it uses only one black ink if set for Black? And in the absence of a Gray Balancer, I haven't been able to produce truly neutral results in the Color setting.

5. Papers surfaces/coatings/stock: I'm not at all happy with results on the only paper that one can honestly call "archival," Watercolor Radiant White. Prints on it lack - guess what? - 'Radiance,' or vibrancy. Velvet Fine Art produces the 'radiant' print quality I was expecting, but the prints aren't going to last as long. And I was shocked to find that Epson, rather than correct the yellowing of the Archival Matte paper stock, merely changed its name to "Enhanced"!

6. The ink ploy: Why-oh-why did they make these teeny little expensive cartridges? Well, you know why.

7. Glossies: I'd put the 'glossy problem' at the bottom of this list: I see less bronzing on Premium Glossy using ColorVision profiles. But I don't think of glossy prints as fine art prints. I'm more concerned about the lack of vibrancy with Watercolor Radiant White & lower longevity rating of Velvet Fine Art.

I'll continue using my 2200 for 'archival' printing, but I hope that future product development addresses concerns such as these.

Kirk

Melanie Kipp said:

Agreed, Not difficult or tempermental. I love this 2200 ( sold
the 1280 to a friend).

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

Click to expand...

And me---I found it very easy to set up. I have both my 1280 and 2200 hooked and use both for various things. I love the 2200 and am just awaiting paper samples and more ink to start sampling to determine my 'favorite' papers as I did with my 1280.

I have to say also that last week I printed 2 glossies--one on Pictorico Photo Gallery Glossy and one on Epson Premium Glossy. I am not a huge fan of glossy prints, but I have to say I was pleased and surprised---and glad I tried them both--with profiles.
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Diane B said:

Melanie Kipp said:

Agreed, Not difficult or tempermental. I love this 2200 ( sold
the 1280 to a friend).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Diane B said:

And me---I found it very easy to set up. I have both my 1280 and
2200 hooked and use both for various things. I love the 2200 and
am just awaiting paper samples and more ink to start sampling to
determine my 'favorite' papers as I did with my 1280.

Click to expand...

Hey, maybe it's just easier for females ;-) -- I didn't find it difficult either, and even installed the 2100 driver to print matte borderless. There's not another printer I would take over this one (even the 7600, because I don't have the room!).

--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, Qimage Pro

Tricia said:

Hey, maybe it's just easier for females ;-) -- I didn't find it
difficult either, and even installed the 2100 driver to print matte
borderless. There's not another printer I would take over this one
(even the 7600, because I don't have the room!).

--
Tricia
Minolta Dimage D7(UG), Epson 2200, PS7, Qimage Pro

Click to expand...

HEY! I'm a guy and I had NO problems with my 2200!
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com