Epson R300 vs R800

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...

How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality, and cost
per print made?

The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some of which
are sold in a gallery.


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You definitely want the R800 then. The difference in permanence is
considerable. (At least based upon current testing methods). The
quality of the print is marginal, but if they are gallery prints, you
want to give them everything you've got.

Cost to run is higher for the R800, because it uses the Ultrachrome inks
and a gloss optimizer. The R300 uses dye inks, which do not require the
gloss optimizer for glossy papers. Since pigments tend to lower the
luster in areas where they are printed on high gloss papers, the
optimizer coats the area to bring the gloss back up.

Art

Michael A. Covington wrote:

> I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...
>
> How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality, and cost
> per print made?
>
> The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some of which
> are sold in a gallery.
>
>

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> You definitely want the R800 then. The difference in permanence is
> considerable. (At least based upon current testing methods). The
> quality of the print is marginal, but if they are gallery prints, you
> want to give them everything you've got.
>
> Cost to run is higher for the R800, because it uses the Ultrachrome inks
> and a gloss optimizer. The R300 uses dye inks, which do not require the
> gloss optimizer for glossy papers. Since pigments tend to lower the
> luster in areas where they are printed on high gloss papers, the
> optimizer coats the area to bring the gloss back up.
>
> Art
>
> Michael A. Covington wrote:
>
>> I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...
>>
>> How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality, and
>> cost per print made?
>>
>> The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some of
>> which are sold in a gallery.
>>
>>
>

What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"? I use a
R800 in my wedding photography business all the time. The quality is
stunning. My picky bride customers love the quality of the prints. I
think the quality is significantly better than what I ever got from film.

I have also read plenty of reviews of the R800 that conclude that this
is currently the best quality output of any non-pro inkjet printer on
the market.

Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"?

I believe he meant the quality difference between the R300 and the R800 was
marginal, not that the quality of the R800 prints were marginal. I have the
R800 and can't believe how good the prints look (this coming from an
dedicated HP fan). I have not seen the prints from the R300 though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:45:29 GMT, "Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com>
wrote:

>> What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"?
>
>I believe he meant the quality difference between the R300 and the R800 was
>marginal, not that the quality of the R800 prints were marginal. I have the
>R800 and can't believe how good the prints look (this coming from an
>dedicated HP fan). I have not seen the prints from the R300 though.
>
Waitaminnit, lemme scan one...

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi Clyde,

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity of that statement.

What the statement should have read was:

The perceived differences in quality of the print (between the R300 and
the R800) are marginal. What I was getting at is that while the R800
produces a very fine print, the R300 print is also quite good, and that
the majority of people would not notice the differences between them,
but for a gallery print one wants the best quality one can produce (and
therefore the R800 is again the better choice). I would agree with you
that the R800 has one of the best quality outputs on the market today,
but that some of the less costly models are a close second.

Although no excuse, I should explain that besides responding regularly
here, I also answer dozens of private emails a day on printing and
scanning, and also respond to several other lists, so I can, on
occasion, get a bit too cryptic in my reply for the sake of expediency.

I certainly don't mind when people call this to my attention, so I can
expand and correct any statement that is an ambiguous as the one you
pointed out was. Thanks,

Art

Clyde wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> You definitely want the R800 then. The difference in permanence is
>> considerable. (At least based upon current testing methods). The
>> quality of the print is marginal, but if they are gallery prints, you
>> want to give them everything you've got.
>>
>> Cost to run is higher for the R800, because it uses the Ultrachrome
>> inks and a gloss optimizer. The R300 uses dye inks, which do not
>> require the gloss optimizer for glossy papers. Since pigments tend to
>> lower the luster in areas where they are printed on high gloss papers,
>> the optimizer coats the area to bring the gloss back up.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Michael A. Covington wrote:
>>
>>> I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...
>>>
>>> How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality, and
>>> cost per print made?
>>>
>>> The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some of
>>> which are sold in a gallery.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"? I use a
> R800 in my wedding photography business all the time. The quality is
> stunning. My picky bride customers love the quality of the prints. I
> think the quality is significantly better than what I ever got from film.
>
> I have also read plenty of reviews of the R800 that conclude that this
> is currently the best quality output of any non-pro inkjet printer on
> the market.
>
> Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi Steve,

Yes, that was my intention in the statement, but I can fully understand
how it could have been read differently. I'm pleased to have a chance
to elaborate.

Art

Steven Wandy wrote:

>>What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"?
>
>
> I believe he meant the quality difference between the R300 and the R800 was
> marginal, not that the quality of the R800 prints were marginal. I have the
> R800 and can't believe how good the prints look (this coming from an
> dedicated HP fan). I have not seen the prints from the R300 though.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Clyde wrote:

> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> You definitely want the R800 then. The difference in permanence is
>> considerable. (At least based upon current testing methods). The
>> quality of the print is marginal, but if they are gallery prints, you
>> want to give them everything you've got.
>>
>> Cost to run is higher for the R800, because it uses the Ultrachrome
>> inks and a gloss optimizer. The R300 uses dye inks, which do not
>> require the gloss optimizer for glossy papers. Since pigments tend to
>> lower the luster in areas where they are printed on high gloss papers,
>> the optimizer coats the area to bring the gloss back up.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Michael A. Covington wrote:
>>
>>> I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...
>>>
>>> How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality, and
>>> cost per print made?
>>>
>>> The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some of
>>> which are sold in a gallery.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"? I use a
> R800 in my wedding photography business all the time. The quality is
> stunning. My picky bride customers love the quality of the prints. I
> think the quality is significantly better than what I ever got from film.
>
> I have also read plenty of reviews of the R800 that conclude that this
> is currently the best quality output of any non-pro inkjet printer on
> the market.
>
> Clyde

Of course you have not ready any reviews of the Canon i9900 (and its new
stable mate the ip8500). These are considered the best of any non pro
inkjet printer.

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Clyde wrote:
>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> You definitely want the R800 then. The difference in permanence is
>>> considerable. (At least based upon current testing methods). The
>>> quality of the print is marginal, but if they are gallery prints, you
>>> want to give them everything you've got.
>>>
>>> Cost to run is higher for the R800, because it uses the Ultrachrome
>>> inks and a gloss optimizer. The R300 uses dye inks, which do not
>>> require the gloss optimizer for glossy papers. Since pigments tend
>>> to lower the luster in areas where they are printed on high gloss
>>> papers, the optimizer coats the area to bring the gloss back up.
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>> Michael A. Covington wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...
>>>>
>>>> How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality, and
>>>> cost per print made?
>>>>
>>>> The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some
>>>> of which are sold in a gallery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"? I use a
>> R800 in my wedding photography business all the time. The quality is
>> stunning. My picky bride customers love the quality of the prints. I
>> think the quality is significantly better than what I ever got from film.
>>
>> I have also read plenty of reviews of the R800 that conclude that this
>> is currently the best quality output of any non-pro inkjet printer on
>> the market.
>>
>> Clyde
>
>
> Of course you have not ready any reviews of the Canon i9900 (and its new
> stable mate the ip8500). These are considered the best of any non pro
> inkjet printer.

Of course, I have read reviews of the i9900, the 7960, the R800, etc.
You can always find a review somewhere that says the printer you want is
the best. I have read reviews that place any of these at the top. That
doesn't mean that the quality of the others is "marginal".

So what does that tell you? If you want to have a very narrow focus, it
tells you what you want to hear. If you look at the world a little
broader, it tells you that could get a damn fine print from any of them.

Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I think I already addressed my use of the term "marginal" in my posting.
It should have been more clearly indicated as "marginal improvement".
The R300 produces a very nice output. As I stated, for someone
producing gallery prints for sale, the additional cost could be
justified in getting and maintaining the R800, as it has yet better
output. I still believe the principal advantage of the R800 over the
R300 is that the R800 uses pigment colorant inks while the R300 (and
R200) use dye colorant inks. However, yes, the R800 is a printer in the
Epson line which will provide one of, if not the best print qualities.

Art

Clyde wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> Clyde wrote:
>>
>>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>> You definitely want the R800 then. The difference in permanence is
>>>> considerable. (At least based upon current testing methods). The
>>>> quality of the print is marginal, but if they are gallery prints,
>>>> you want to give them everything you've got.
>>>>
>>>> Cost to run is higher for the R800, because it uses the Ultrachrome
>>>> inks and a gloss optimizer. The R300 uses dye inks, which do not
>>>> require the gloss optimizer for glossy papers. Since pigments tend
>>>> to lower the luster in areas where they are printed on high gloss
>>>> papers, the optimizer coats the area to bring the gloss back up.
>>>>
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>> Michael A. Covington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have an Epson R300 and can get an R800 inexpensively...
>>>>>
>>>>> How much difference is there in print permanence, print quality,
>>>>> and cost per print made?
>>>>>
>>>>> The main application is high-quality printing of photographs, some
>>>>> of which are sold in a gallery.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean that the "quality of the print is marginal"? I use a
>>> R800 in my wedding photography business all the time. The quality is
>>> stunning. My picky bride customers love the quality of the prints. I
>>> think the quality is significantly better than what I ever got from
>>> film.
>>>
>>> I have also read plenty of reviews of the R800 that conclude that
>>> this is currently the best quality output of any non-pro inkjet
>>> printer on the market.
>>>
>>> Clyde
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course you have not ready any reviews of the Canon i9900 (and its
>> new stable mate the ip8500). These are considered the best of any non
>> pro inkjet printer.
>
>
> Of course, I have read reviews of the i9900, the 7960, the R800, etc.
> You can always find a review somewhere that says the printer you want is
> the best. I have read reviews that place any of these at the top. That
> doesn't mean that the quality of the others is "marginal".
>
> So what does that tell you? If you want to have a very narrow focus, it
> tells you what you want to hear. If you look at the world a little
> broader, it tells you that could get a damn fine print from any of them.
>
> Clyde