Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Prime on 10 Jan 2006 22:53 measekite <inkystinky(a)oem.com> posted the exciting message news:vUUwf.26250 $UF3.5976(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: > IN TEXAS THEY HAVE DELL > In Uranus we have meankite.
From: Mark? on 10 Jan 2006 23:24 Arthur Entlich wrote: > Mark? wrote: > >> Arthur Entlich wrote: >> >>> Mark? wrote: >>> >>> Your 1270 probably just needs a good cleaning of the cleaning >>> station. The purge pump may be all gummed up as well. Cleaning the >>> cleaning station and ink wiper can make a improvement in the >>> cleaning cycles as well. >> >> >> Actually, there is no problem with my 1270. To the contrary, it has >> never clogged in over 6 years, which is why I mentioned it in this >> thread. Perhaps you missed that part... >> :) >> > > No, I saw that part, but I am not convinced that is what is keeping > the head from clogging. Neither am I, though I don't have a better explanation... Do you? I have done absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, and yet it has never ever clogged. > >> Interestingly, it remains >> wet...NEVER drying--even after long periods on non-use. This means >> that instead of "cleaning" the head, it simply wipes goo around and >> ONTO the head. :) Perhaps this is partly what's helped my 1270 >> keep from clogging over the years...because the head can't dry >> out/clog when it's parked in big mess of wet goop! > > The cleaning station shouldn't be that gooped up. I'm surprised you > don't get some black streaks on the paper surface if it has any > variation in it. Your printer's waste ink pads may well be so > saturated that the ink has nowhere to flow to (not so much that it > needs capillary action or wicking, but that it needs a bit more > distance to flow out of the waste ink tube, and that distance has > been reduced as the pads become saturated. As far as I'm concerned...it doesn't "need" anything at all. It doesn't streak...and it doesn't clog. If it ain't broke...why are you suggesting I fix it? :) >>>>> I have >>>>> a whole storage room filled to the brim with old high-tech >>>>> products. >>>> >>>> >>>> Me too. -I just threw a bunch of it away as I cleadned the garage >>>> yesterday. >>>> >>> >>> The problem is we pretty much all have a basement/closet/room filled >>> with lower high tech, and eventually it's all going to be tossed, >>> but where? Consumers, governments and manufacturers need to work >>> together of reducing and eliminating this spiral. >> >> >> California's lame answer to this was to start slapping people with >> disposal taxes when they purchase monitors and the like. Stupid >> part is...they give no indication of any particular mechanism this >> money creates for the actual disposal! >> That's new for ya... It may...or (more likely) may not...go to >> anything related to it supposed reason for being imposed. >> :( >> > > Alberta Canada has a similar law, but I believe the money is being > earmarked for take back, take apart and recycle programs. Up front > money isn't a bad idea, part of the cost of the product existing, is > the reduction of the product back into parts that aren't harmful to > nature. > There certainly should be money earmarked to make sure the monies > collected are reinvented in recycling programs that work. > >> >>> It saddens me to see so much "valuable" stuff get dumped. The items >>> were leading edge at one point, and people paid big money to be "on >>> top" with this stuff. The amount of money I have spent on storage >>> media and devices and memory, all completely obsolete now, is >>> sickening... I try not to think about it! >> >> >> :) >> It kills me too, except that I then remind myself of all I couldn't >> have done without it at the time. >> It's sort of like gasoline. You can look back at all the gas you've >> burned over the years...having nothing to show for it...but the >> alternative would have been going nowhere all those years. :) >> Wasted money? Nah. Really just money spent to get where we're >> going...both on the road, and on the computer. >> :) >> (But OK...on the other hand...it still is a little depressing!) >> -Mark > > Sometimes when I think not just about the money, but the time I spent > learning to use the cumbersome software So and hardware, I'm not sure > I'm that far ahead. Newer users have products that have less steep > learning curves, so in some ways they may catch up with those who > lived through the dark years. > > Art Perhaps...
From: Mark? on 10 Jan 2006 23:31 Bill Hilton wrote: >> Arthur Entlich whines ... >> >> Thanks for the correction Bill. I bow to your knowledge. ... >> But you, in all your "wisdom" couldn't hold your typing fingers >> without making a completely uncalled for, and statistically >> inaccurate statement about me, could you? > > No I couldn't, because for about five years I've thought you were one > of the most annoying clueless jackasses on the newsgroups Arthur. You > seem to have it in for companies that are market leaders and drone on > endlessly about all the things they are doing wrong while you've never > actually accomplished anything yourself, whether it's Epson printers > or Nikon scanners (how's that Polaroid Sprintscan doing for you, now > that they went belly up?). I just ignore your endless opiniated > replies but when you get your facts wrong I'll feel free to jump in, > whether you like it or not. > > And it's not just me who feels that way, another person in this thread > once told me he found you so replusive that he would sometimes abandon > a group when you entered. Why is that? > > Bill I don't know the history involved with the two of you...but to Arthur: -If you've got a thing with Bill, it must be a "personal thing," because I've never seen anything in/from Bill (save for this little heated exchange) that would indicate anything other than Bill being a perfect gentleman. I don't know you, Arthur, and so won't comment with regard to you. What I can say, though, is that around here, Bill is one of the good guys. -Mark
From: Mark? on 10 Jan 2006 23:33 Paul Rubin wrote: > Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp(a)mvps.org> writes: >> cartridges. Epson uses 8 cartridges in the 4000. They also use 8 in >> the 4800, 7800, 9800. The 4000 uses CcMmYKKk, the two uppercase K's >> are for the photo black and the matte black, as you state.... > > So when all is said and done, how do these epson prints compare with > Fuji Frontier prints? I can get those done at my local walgreens for > something like 3 bucks for an 8x10. I'm wondering if there's really > any reason (other than perhaps risque shots or something like that) > for a low-volume home user to buy a photo printer. Simple. The retention of complete control over all aspects concerned with the final rendition of your image...which is something you definitely give up when you hand it off to ANY print service.
From: Arthur Entlich on 11 Jan 2006 10:09
Well, certainly not the ones mentioned below which are wide carriage professional printers costing thousands of dollars. But to be more serious, you raise a very good question, to which the answer is - it depends. Although the learning curve is getting a bit less steep, if you aren't interested in having the personal control factors, if you aren't printing a ton of prints, where even small savings add up, if you are either nearby a store or have internet access, then it may be hard to justify. You have to pay for the printer, software, wear and tear on the computer, inks paper, and waste in getting the print right. It also costs time and for some, frustration. Just the other day, I was speaking to someone about this, and I mentioned that the photo industry has discovered how to re-engage digital photographers by offering very competitively priced prints. The nice thing is that even going to a relatively non-professional lab can provide reasonable results, as things become more automated, and the worst that happens is they have to reprint for you. There are no longer original negs or slides to ruin during processing or handling. So, unless you enjoy the creative process, you may be better off having it done for you. Art Paul Rubin wrote: > Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp(a)mvps.org> writes: > >>cartridges. Epson uses 8 cartridges in the 4000. They also use 8 in >>the 4800, 7800, 9800. The 4000 uses CcMmYKKk, the two uppercase K's >>are for the photo black and the matte black, as you state.... > > > So when all is said and done, how do these epson prints compare with > Fuji Frontier prints? I can get those done at my local walgreens for > something like 3 bucks for an 8x10. I'm wondering if there's really > any reason (other than perhaps risque shots or something like that) > for a low-volume home user to buy a photo printer. |