From: Mark? on
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> There is a certain irony that this business model is so well
> "designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth
> of ink, they can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or
> more on a
> printer.

It is worth every bit of that extra $1000 if you want ultra chrome, larger
prints, serious longevity, and industrial-strength product build.



From: Mark? on
Stewy wrote:
> In article <oH3vf.7868$V.6468(a)fed1read04>,
> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Stewy wrote:
>>> In article <qwZtf.788$eR.402(a)fed1read03>,
>>> "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aside from the obvious difference in print output size, what are
>>>> the _real quality_ differences between the new Epson 2400 and 4800
>>>> printers?
>>>>
>>>> The 2400 advertises much higher 5760x1440 dpi printing, but the
>>>> 4800 at 2880x1440 is listed as a "Pro" model. What gives?
>>>>
>>>> Both use the new K3 inks.
>>>>
>>> Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.
>>
>> What media do you print on that you believe takes advantage of that
>> dpi?
>
> Here in Japan there are plenty of high resolution papers to choose
> from, unfortunately many are unavailable in other countries just as
> Ilford papers are hard to get in Japan.

I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of dpi
that high.


From: measekite on


Arthur Entlich wrote:

> There is a certain irony that this business model is so well
> "designed" that by Epson offering perhaps $10-$20 actual cost worth of
> ink, they can make a person justify spending an additional $1000 or
> more on a printer.
>
> Of course, if you are to use OEM inks

YOU NEED TO PROTECT YOU BIG INVESTMENT

> in the less costly 2400 or R1800 anyway, indeed the prices are what
> they are, and the ink cost therefore is a real consideration.
> However, that doesn't alter the fact that this ink is unbelievably
> overpriced.
>
> One caveat. If you are not producing large quantities of large
> prints, keep in mind the Ultrachrome inks tend to have quality loss
> issues after 6 months to a year, so you want to be sure you will use
> them up in that period of time on open cartridges, or that savings on
> ink may be reversed.
>
> Further, as mentioned, if you will be moving between the Photo/glossy
> and Matte black inks often, the cost of lost ink plus replacement
> waste ink units will rapidly eat up all your savings.
>
> Art
>
> Mark? wrote:
>
>> rafe b wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:33:21 -0800, "Mark Anon" <Anonymous(a)xyz.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please let me clarify: I am a serious amateur (Nikon D2X for
>>>> digital and Canham 5x7 large format for film), but by NO means am I
>>>> a working commercial pro. I want to be able to print _professional
>>>> quality_ prints that I can market sell but the volume of prints I
>>>> might sell will NOT be large (as much as I'd like it to be
>>>> otherwise... <s>)
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to add this because it sounds like the 4800 is more
>>>> geared (rugged build, higher cost of ink cartridges) towards a
>>>> higher production volume environment than mine???
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I ordered the Epson R1800, which seems more geared
>>> toward glossy papers. Plus, it's a couple hundred $$
>>> cheaper than the 2400.
>>>
>>> I expect with either one I'll be paying a small fortune
>>> for inks. C'est la vie. For the $1000 I've saved I can
>>> buy a lot of ink, or get a lot of LightJet prints made.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand... The 4800 comes with about $400 worth of ink
>> right in the box.
>> -This makes it's somewhat steep price not so outlandish after all...
>>
From: David Nebenzahl on
Mark? spake thus:

> Stewy wrote:
>
>> In article <oH3vf.7868$V.6468(a)fed1read04>, "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest
>> even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> Stewy wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <qwZtf.788$eR.402(a)fed1read03>, "Mark Anon"
>>>> <Anonymous(a)xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aside from the obvious difference in print output size, what
>>>>> are the _real quality_ differences between the new Epson 2400
>>>>> and 4800 printers?
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2400 advertises much higher 5760x1440 dpi printing, but
>>>>> the 4800 at 2880x1440 is listed as a "Pro" model. What
>>>>> gives?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both use the new K3 inks.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at the Canon iP4200. It'll print at 9600x2400dpi.
>>>
>>> What media do you print on that you believe takes advantage of
>>> that dpi?
>>
>> Here in Japan there are plenty of high resolution papers to choose
>> from, unfortunately many are unavailable in other countries just as
>> Ilford papers are hard to get in Japan.
>
> I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of
> dpi that high.

Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much*
coarser than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure?


--
The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington
is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.
From: rafe b on

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody(a)but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:43bd8deb$0$6018$822641b3(a)news.adtechcomputers.com...

> Right; seems to me the fibers in the paper are going to be *much* coarser
> than that claimed high resolution. Anyone know for sure?


You're not printing on fibers. There are about a half-dozen
layers on top of the fiber, and you're printing on the topmost
of those. It's likely to be kaolin or microcrystalline, or maybe
a swellable polymer. But definitely not fibers.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com