Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is there an A3 version of the R300?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
August 3, 2005 6:50:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Just wondered if there is an A3 version of the R300, that also takes the
same ink carts.

Thanks

Mikey

More about : version r300

August 3, 2005 6:50:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
> R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.

Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers

r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM

p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light

But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
going with 3rd party inks.

But near as i'm aware there isn't any equilivent to the r300... with
the screen and card slots in a3/a3+ at all.

There are canons and HPs that are a3/a3+ that are dye, in fact Canon
doesn't even offer pigments at all unless you go with their wide
models... a1 and above IIRC.
August 3, 2005 7:13:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
> If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
> life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
> then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
> (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
>print life).

I stand corrected on the drop size on the r2400, it's 3.5pl, rather
than the r200/r300 at 3pl IIRC. I naturally assumed since the r2400
costs more than the r1800 that it would have at least the same or finer
head, my mistake.

Keep in mind the OP was looking for an a3 version of the r200/r300,
which well doesn't exist exactly, the only thing close in terms of
colors is the r2400 in terms of colors except they are pigment and have
extra blacks.

The only reason I can think of using dye in a pigment printer is if you
want dye and they don't sell a wide dye printer. Lots of people like
dye... just ask anyone who prints in HP vivera inks :p 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 3, 2005 8:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
> optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
> The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
> film lab.

I was under the impression that the inks, at one K and the CMY were the
same between the R2400 as the r1800, and the only major difference was
the r1800 offered different colors and the r2400 offered the light
inks. I agree that the bronzing with the epson inks can be solved with
a clear layer whether it be the gloss from the r1800, shallaque if you
want a fast dry or spar urathain if you want long lasting and don't
mind a slight blueing if fresh, or a slight yellowing if hummid.

But all of this is accidemic... some people just like dyes, whether it
be brozing or want something that looks like water color on fine art
paper. I have no clue why the OP wanted the r200 in a3, I naturaly
assumed they prefered dye which in epson near as i'm aware isn't an
option unless you hack something on one of their a3+ printer.

> I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.

Assuming the application is archival prints, which I assume not since
they are looking at the r200, something like the hp vivera inks are
rated at 82+ years. I'm too lazy to drag up the see wilhelm-research
test. I've not tested these personaly but the output looks fab esp
with the 99 grey cart the shadows are top notch. The new canon inks
are reported to be an improvement over the old, but their high number
year mark is noted as being stored in an album, not behind glass.
Generally speaking your average pigment does outlast your average dye,
but there are excpetions to this generalization and many people my self
included prefer the look of dyes on glossy papers.
August 3, 2005 11:40:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
> lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
> They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
> or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
> informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
> colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
> with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400.

I guess you are correct... Looks like the R1800 takes the T054x20 Where
the R2400 takes the T059x20. I guess I never looked at the 3rd number
that closely before. But that would make sence... one doesn't have the
encapsulated pigments and the other does, would explain why the r2400
only shows minor bronzing, and I mean minor. Still looks nicer under a
coat of shallaque.

I generally take all estimates of lightfastness with a grain of salt,
but needless to say the HP Vivera dyes are very good on the scale of
fade resistance... Chances are the Ultra Chrome are a tad more
archival... chances are. But never the less watercolors are still a
perfectly acceptable medium to work with and I can't fault anyone for
going with dye... tends to look more consistant to me anyway rather
than encapulated powerers or even r1800 with it's gloss optimizer...
which the output to me tends to look like a decal afixed to paper.

But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
August 4, 2005 1:55:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
>
>
> Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
> ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
> chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
> r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
>
> r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
> r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
> r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
>
> p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
>
> But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
> aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
> desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
> issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
> chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
> stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
> a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
> know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
> 1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
> epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
> going with 3rd party inks.
>
?
The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
print life).
August 4, 2005 1:55:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
> zakezuke wrote:
>
> >>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
> >>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
> >
> >
> > Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
> > ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
> > chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
> > r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
> >
> > r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
> > r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
> > r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
> >
> > p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
> >
> > But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
> > aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
> > desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
> > issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
> > chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
> > stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
> > a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
> > know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
> > 1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
> > epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
> > going with 3rd party inks.
> >
> ?
> The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
> it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
> Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
> If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
> life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
> then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
> (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
> print life).
>

Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and printed on
an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film lab.

You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a printer
60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish I
get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM would
cost me over £12.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:55:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <dcrger$jb$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

> ...my work can still be re-printed on a printer 60 years in the
> future...

Just make sure you keep updating your storage medium!

Jon.
August 4, 2005 2:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>> Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
>>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
>>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
>>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
>>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
>>print life).
>
>
> I stand corrected on the drop size on the r2400, it's 3.5pl, rather
> than the r200/r300 at 3pl IIRC. I naturally assumed since the r2400
> costs more than the r1800 that it would have at least the same or finer
> head, my mistake.
>
> Keep in mind the OP was looking for an a3 version of the r200/r300,
> which well doesn't exist exactly, the only thing close in terms of
> colors is the r2400 in terms of colors except they are pigment and have
> extra blacks.
>
You've lost me here. The R1800 or the R2400 are both in an entirely
different league from the R300 in colour gamut. The R800 uses C M Y K
pK R and Blue, plus GO. The Red and Blue (as well as CMY and K) get used
in photo printing.
The R2400 uses three black cartridges - and is understandably better for
B&W prints in terms of colour cast and metamerism. But there is no free
lunch, it uses more ink per print, and wastes ink when you change black
cartridges when switching between gloss and matte media.
There is some discussion of user comparison for colour output here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=637

>
> The only reason I can think of using dye in a pigment printer is if you
> want dye and they don't sell a wide dye printer. Lots of people like
> dye... just ask anyone who prints in HP vivera inks :p 
>
August 4, 2005 3:07:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:

> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
>
>>zakezuke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
>>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
>>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
>>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
>>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
>>>
>>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
>>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
>>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
>>>
>>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
>>>
>>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
>>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
>>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
>>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
>>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
>>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
>>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
>>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
>>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
>>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
>>>going with 3rd party inks.
>>>
>>
>>?
>>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
>>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
>>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
>>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
>>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
>>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
>>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
>>print life).
>>
>
>
> Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
> pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
> printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and printed on
> an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film lab.
>
Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
film lab.

> You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
> that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a printer
> 60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
> have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish I
> get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM would
> cost me over £12.
>
>
60 years are the sort of figures that testers come up with for tests
based on archival storage conditions. If you do as I do, and put photos
on display behind glass, then you can soon see that supposedly
long-lasting media (my experience has been with Cibachrome) don't last
very long at all - a few years at best in the harsh UV in New Zealand.
I'm not looking for 60 (or 200) years - just a few years, and although
I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
August 4, 2005 4:24:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1123110346.283033@ftpsrv1...
> Shooter wrote:
>
> > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
> >
> >>zakezuke wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
> >>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
> >>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
> >>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
> >>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
> >>>
> >>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
> >>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
> >>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
> >>>
> >>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
> >>>
> >>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
> >>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
> >>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
> >>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
> >>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
> >>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
> >>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
> >>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
> >>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
> >>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
> >>>going with 3rd party inks.
> >>>
> >>
> >>?
> >>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
> >>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
> >>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
> >>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
> >>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
> >>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
> >>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
> >>print life).
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
> > pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
> > printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and
printed on
> > an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film
lab.
> >
> Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
> optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
> The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
> film lab.


True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
bronzing although much reduced, but still there. Very nice if you want to
get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new Epson, I
don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink so
for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off both
printers and there is still bronzing. When you say the two you quote as
giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs from
a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with these
improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
processed in a lab.

When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film or
digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a film
camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many respects.
if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for the
job.

>
> > You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
> > that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a
printer
> > 60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
> > have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish
I
> > get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM
would
> > cost me over £12.
> >
> >
> 60 years are the sort of figures that testers come up with for tests
> based on archival storage conditions. If you do as I do, and put photos
> on display behind glass, then you can soon see that supposedly
> long-lasting media (my experience has been with Cibachrome) don't last
> very long at all - a few years at best in the harsh UV in New Zealand.
> I'm not looking for 60 (or 200) years - just a few years, and although
> I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
August 4, 2005 4:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:

>>Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
>>optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
>>The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
>>film lab.
>
>
> I was under the impression that the inks, at one K and the CMY were the
> same between the R2400 as the r1800, and the only major difference was
> the r1800 offered different colors and the r2400 offered the light
> inks. I agree that the bronzing with the epson inks can be solved with
> a clear layer whether it be the gloss from the r1800, shallaque if you
> want a fast dry or spar urathain if you want long lasting and don't
> mind a slight blueing if fresh, or a slight yellowing if hummid.
>
There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400. I haven't seen
gloss output from an R2400. R1800 prints with GO are not quite as
glossy as output from a dye printer like a canon iP9950. It's not a
huge difference. The pigment inks are no good with swellable polymer
extemely high gloss papers - not that I would want to use those papers
even with a dye printer because they have terrible durability.

> But all of this is accidemic... some people just like dyes, whether it
> be brozing or want something that looks like water color on fine art
> paper. I have no clue why the OP wanted the r200 in a3, I naturaly
> assumed they prefered dye which in epson near as i'm aware isn't an
> option unless you hack something on one of their a3+ printer.
>
>
>>I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
>
>
> Assuming the application is archival prints, which I assume not since
> they are looking at the r200, something like the hp vivera inks are
> rated at 82+ years. I'm too lazy to drag up the see wilhelm-research
> test. I've not tested these personaly but the output looks fab esp
> with the 99 grey cart the shadows are top notch. The new canon inks
> are reported to be an improvement over the old, but their high number
> year mark is noted as being stored in an album, not behind glass.
> Generally speaking your average pigment does outlast your average dye,
> but there are excpetions to this generalization and many people my self
> included prefer the look of dyes on glossy papers.
>
IIRC, some of the dye inks from Canon are rated at around 100 years when
used on their premium paper. If Vivera inks on certain media are rated
at 82+ years, then be assured that is also under archival conditions.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:28:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <dct1dr$jv$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

> ...only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
> film camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
> respects.

I'd say the only major shortcoming is bit-depth. In high contrast
situations that is a considerable drawback. In most other respects, when
compared with 35mm film cameras, the advantages far outweigh the
disadvantages in my opinion, even at the lower- to mid-range.

Jon.
August 4, 2005 9:22:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

zakezuke wrote:
>>There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
>>lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
>>They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
>>or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
>>informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
>>colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
>>with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400.
>
>
> I guess you are correct... Looks like the R1800 takes the T054x20 Where
> the R2400 takes the T059x20. I guess I never looked at the 3rd number
> that closely before. But that would make sence... one doesn't have the
> encapsulated pigments and the other does, would explain why the r2400
> only shows minor bronzing, and I mean minor. Still looks nicer under a
> coat of shallaque.
>
> I generally take all estimates of lightfastness with a grain of salt,
> but needless to say the HP Vivera dyes are very good on the scale of
> fade resistance... Chances are the Ultra Chrome are a tad more
> archival... chances are.

The Vivera inks rate ok for display behind glass. They are only going
to last on swellable polymer papers, so fine art or watercolour papers
aren't a great idea, and as you have probably found out, swellable
polymer papers have no water resistance and are in the "handle with
care" category unless protected. In fact, WIR didn't bother to test the
8750 on other than HP swellable polymer gloss and semi-gloss papers.
Testing the Vivera prints unframed is a bit of a futile exercise IMO -
as a displayed print will get destroyed by water damage in most
environments long before it fades.
You might want to look at the comparison of the designjet 130 "bare
bulb" test on photo matte paper of 14 years, vs the R1800 on matte paper
of 65 or 70 years on two papers tested. Divide the result by a factor
of X to get what you expect or hope for, if you think WIR are optimists
(as I do). I don't expect dye to last more than a couple of years at
best on anything other than swellable polymer OEM paper.
The R1800 prints on various papers rate much higher, and very
importantly, they have moderate to high water resistance.
The epson pigment prints are not just (more than) a tad more archival,
they are far more durable in all circumstances, and allow for printing
on a wide range of media.

> But never the less watercolors are still a
> perfectly acceptable medium to work with and I can't fault anyone for
> going with dye... tends to look more consistant to me anyway rather
> than encapulated powerers or even r1800 with it's gloss optimizer...
> which the output to me tends to look like a decal afixed to paper.
Not so much when it's dry, and if considered so on some media, then
apply GO to the border.
>
> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
>
Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
August 4, 2005 11:06:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> zakezuke wrote:

>>
>> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
>> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
>>
> Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.


So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
still listed, anymore???

rm
August 5, 2005 4:10:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Fred wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> zakezuke wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
>>> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
>>>
>> Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
>
>
>
> So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
> still listed, anymore???
>
oops - I did say that....
add "except for the 1290s"
August 5, 2005 1:50:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123110346.283033@ftpsrv1...
>
>>Shooter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
>>>
>>>
>>>>zakezuke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
>>>>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
>>>>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
>>>>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
>>>>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
>>>>>
>>>>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
>>>>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
>>>>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
>>>>>
>>>>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
>>>>>
>>>>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
>>>>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
>>>>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
>>>>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
>>>>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
>>>>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
>>>>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
>>>>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
>>>>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
>>>>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
>>>>>going with 3rd party inks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
>>>>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
>>>>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
>>>>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
>>>>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
>>>>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
>>>>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
>>>>print life).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
>>>pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
>>>printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and
>
> printed on
>
>>>an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film
>
> lab.
>
>>Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
>>optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
>>The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
>>film lab.
>
>
>
> True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
> bronzing although much reduced, but still there.

With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.

> Very nice if you want to
> get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new Epson, I
> don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink so
> for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
> just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off both
> printers and there is still bronzing.

See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
held up on the surace.
Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
expensive than the R1800.


> When you say the two you quote as
> giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs from
> a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with these
> improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
> processed in a lab.
>
> When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film or
> digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a film
> camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many respects.
> if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for the
> job.
>
>
I disagree.
Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800."
(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)

There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
August 5, 2005 4:33:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> Fred wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> zakezuke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
>>>> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
>>>>
>>> Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
>> still listed, anymore???
>>
> oops - I did say that....
> add "except for the 1290s"

It wouldn't have surprised me if that had occurred. :) 

rm
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:23:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In general, "photo" printers which use both high and low color load inks
tend to be designed to print with larger "dots".

The R1800 uses all full load color inks (adding red and blue to the mix)
so it works better with smaller dots.

So, in general photo printers use up more ink.

Art


frederick wrote:

> zakezuke wrote:
>
>>> I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
>>> R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
>> ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
>> chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
>> r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
>>
>> r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
>> r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
>> r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
>>
>> p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
>>
>> But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
>> aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
>> desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
>> issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
>> chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
>> stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
>> a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
>> know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
>> 1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
>> epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
>> going with 3rd party inks.
>>
> ?
> The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
> it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
> Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
> If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
> life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
> then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
> (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
> print life).
>
August 6, 2005 4:45:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...

> >
> >
> > True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
> > bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
>
> With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
> is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
> understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
>
> > Very nice if you want to
> > get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
Epson, I
> > don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
so
> > for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
> > just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
both
> > printers and there is still bronzing.
>
> See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
> and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
> polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
> held up on the surace.
> Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
> stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
> the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
> If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
> machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
> expensive than the R1800.
>
>
> > When you say the two you quote as
> > giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
from
> > a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
these
> > improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
> > processed in a lab.
> >
> > When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
or
> > digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
film
> > camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
respects.
> > if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
the
> > job.
> >
> >
> I disagree.
> Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
> "The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
> chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
> anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
> " As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
> exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
> afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
> print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
> I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
> print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
> merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
> look at the output from the R1800."
> (see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
>
> There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
> my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
> prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
> compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
> 645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
> you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)

Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling at
such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now an
old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer you
would have been aware of this.

I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.

Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
August 7, 2005 2:05:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:


> I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
> 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
> whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
> what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
> thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
>
> I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
> a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
> refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
> manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
> could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.
>
> Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than a
film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

Digital camera images to an inkjet are the sharpest IMO.

rm
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 2:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article
<42f55051$0$15513$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
mesa@mine.com (Rob) wrote:

> Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than
> a film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

That depends very much on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator
and the post-scanning processing the image gets. I don't think you can
generalise on the subject.

> I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
> a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

All scanned images require some post-scan sharpening. If they don't get it
then the print is bound to lack sharpness.

Jon.
August 7, 2005 2:45:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:
> "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...
>
>
>>>
>>>True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
>>>bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
>>
>>With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
>>is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
>>understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
>>
>>
>>>Very nice if you want to
>>>get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
>
> Epson, I
>
>>>don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
>
> so
>
>>>for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
>>>just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
>
> both
>
>>>printers and there is still bronzing.
>>
>>See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
>>and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
>>polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
>>held up on the surace.
>>Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
>>stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
>>the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
>>If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
>>machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
>>expensive than the R1800.
>>
>>
>>
>>>When you say the two you quote as
>>>giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
>
> from
>
>>>a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
>
> these
>
>>>improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
>>>processed in a lab.
>>>
>>>When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
>
> or
>
>>>digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
>
> film
>
>>>camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
>
> respects.
>
>>>if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
>
> the
>
>>>job.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I disagree.
>>Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
>>"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
>>chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
>>anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
>>" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
>>exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
>>afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
>>print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
>>I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
>>print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
>>merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
>>look at the output from the R1800."
>>(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
>>
>>There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
>>my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
>>prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
>>compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
>>645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
>>you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
>
>
> Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling at
> such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now an
> old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
> shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer you
> would have been aware of this.
>
It applies to all 35mm equipment - regardless of quality or age. Demand
is gone. Only collectors items (Leica, Alpa etc) seem to have retained
value.
> I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
> 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
> whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
> what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
> thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
>
I don't disbelieve you, but there are plenty of successful wedding
photographers now using only digital 6-8mp, Canon 20D, Fuji s3/s3 etc -
not even high-end equipment.
>
> I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
> a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
> refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
> manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
> could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.
>
That article I referenced was not mine!
I assume that Vincent Oliver who wrote the article knows what he is
talking about and it was not a direct comparison - more an impression
that one print from an inkjet looked better than anything that he had
done wet-process in 30 years of professional photography.

> Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
>
August 7, 2005 3:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Jon O'Brien wrote:

> In article
> <42f55051$0$15513$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
> mesa@mine.com (Rob) wrote:
>
>
>>Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than
>>a film scanned image to an inkjet printer.
>
>
> That depends very much on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator
> and the post-scanning processing the image gets. I don't think you can
> generalise on the subject.
>
>
>>I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
>>a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)
>
>
> All scanned images require some post-scan sharpening. If they don't get it
> then the print is bound to lack sharpness.
>
> Jon.


Film is a diffused medium for it to work.

rm
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 3:36:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article
<42f56586$0$15510$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
mesa@mine.com (Rob) wrote:

> Film is a diffused medium for it to work.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Can you expand on that a bit,
please?

Jon.
August 7, 2005 3:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I never
said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on an
upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
photos.


"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
news:42f55051$0$15513$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Shooter wrote:
>
>
> > I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken
with a
> > 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no
doubt
> > whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
> > what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots
and
> > thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
> >
> > I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured
against
> > a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system,
I
> > refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
> > manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then
there
> > could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an
Inkjet.
> >
> > Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than a
> film scanned image to an inkjet printer.
>
> I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
> a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)
>
> Digital camera images to an inkjet are the sharpest IMO.
>
> rm
August 7, 2005 3:58:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am always suspicious of writers who give opinions such as Vincent Oliver,
many have to be taken for what they are, Opinions, even you thought it was
an impression.


"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1123368187.54871@ftpsrv1...
> Shooter wrote:
> > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
> >>>bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
> >>
> >>With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
> >>is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
> >>understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Very nice if you want to
> >>>get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
> >
> > Epson, I
> >
> >>>don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
> >
> > so
> >
> >>>for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's
all.
> >>>just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
> >
> > both
> >
> >>>printers and there is still bronzing.
> >>
> >>See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
> >>and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
> >>polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
> >>held up on the surace.
> >>Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
> >>stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
> >>the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
> >>If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
> >>machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
> >>expensive than the R1800.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>When you say the two you quote as
> >>>giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
> >
> > from
> >
> >>>a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
> >
> > these
> >
> >>>improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
> >>>processed in a lab.
> >>>
> >>>When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
> >
> > or
> >
> >>>digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
> >
> > film
> >
> >>>camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
> >
> > respects.
> >
> >>>if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>job.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I disagree.
> >>Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
> >>"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
> >>chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
> >>anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
> >>" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
> >>exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
> >>afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
> >>print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
> >>I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
> >>print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
> >>merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
> >>look at the output from the R1800."
> >>(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
> >>
> >>There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
> >>my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
> >>prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
> >>compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
> >>645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
> >>you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
> >
> >
> > Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling
at
> > such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now
an
> > old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
> > shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer
you
> > would have been aware of this.
> >
> It applies to all 35mm equipment - regardless of quality or age. Demand
> is gone. Only collectors items (Leica, Alpa etc) seem to have retained
> value.
> > I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken
with a
> > 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no
doubt
> > whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
> > what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots
and
> > thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
> >
> I don't disbelieve you, but there are plenty of successful wedding
> photographers now using only digital 6-8mp, Canon 20D, Fuji s3/s3 etc -
> not even high-end equipment.
> >
> > I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured
against
> > a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system,
I
> > refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
> > manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then
there
> > could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an
Inkjet.
> >
> That article I referenced was not mine!
> I assume that Vincent Oliver who wrote the article knows what he is
> talking about and it was not a direct comparison - more an impression
> that one print from an inkjet looked better than anything that he had
> done wet-process in 30 years of professional photography.
>
> > Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
> >
August 8, 2005 3:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:

> I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I never
> said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on an
> upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
> photos.
>
>
>

Two points which I am in agreement with you.

1. That digital camera images printed to an inkjet printer are sharper
than the same images printed to the wet process. This is by the nature
of the printing processes.

2. One step further in that a scanned image (digitised for printing)
from the F4 (film) is not as sharp as the digital camera image. (What
ever process its printed)

rm
August 8, 2005 3:15:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi Rob,

Must be my poor manner of explaining, I agree with your two points however
the wet wedding pic's were not scanned at any time they were produced by a
Pro Lab who only do film. the digi shots were sent to another company who
took them straight off the memory card to the printer, no scanning at any
time. Now on the return of the wet pic's it was plain to see they were by
far better in quality than the memory card picks, the memory card pic's were
produced on a 7mp camera and the wet pic's on a 6x6 film camera.

Just one of many differences was the dress detail in the wet photo's, the
digi ones had very poor detail in the dresses. of course I copied the card
before sending just in case anyone raises the point. My point to Frederick
was that the digi shots are not as good as the film ones taken with my F4
with film and again no comparison was made between the digi and the 6x6, it
would have been a waste of time. Ok a point may be that I only use the very
best in Nikon lens, top end only. The digi shots were no even offered to the
customer as part of the package only film shots.

"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
news:42f60966$0$15510$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Shooter wrote:
>
> > I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I
never
> > said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on
an
> > upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
> > photos.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Two points which I am in agreement with you.
>
> 1. That digital camera images printed to an inkjet printer are sharper
> than the same images printed to the wet process. This is by the nature
> of the printing processes.
>
> 2. One step further in that a scanned image (digitised for printing)
> from the F4 (film) is not as sharp as the digital camera image. (What
> ever process its printed)
>
> rm
August 8, 2005 4:31:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:

> I am always suspicious of writers who give opinions such as Vincent Oliver,
> many have to be taken for what they are, Opinions, even you thought it was
> an impression.
>
>
"Of course, in the end — and no matter what evidence is brought to bare,
or what arguments are made, the hard-core aficionado of the traditional
photographic print will claim that an inkjet print just isn't a
"photograph". Well, all I can can is, "Get over it""

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/handmade.sh...
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 6:19:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <dd5790$d0s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

> ...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
> off the memory card to the printer...

That's almost certainly the problem, then. /Any/ digitally acquired image
needs sharpening before printing, whether it's a scanned negative, slide
or print or an image from a digital camera.

Jon.
August 8, 2005 3:24:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose detail
and alter colour. I had no problem with the sharpness of the pic's it was
loss of detail in delicate colours, and that was with a top of the range
compact Olympus C70. the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction
with gear I could not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a
memory card. They send proofs of before and after correction, I might just
add at a price of course which is fair enough as with a wedding you only get
one shot.

"Jon O'Brien" <Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050808021923.300D@blue.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <dd5790$d0s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
>
> > ...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
> > off the memory card to the printer...
>
> That's almost certainly the problem, then. /Any/ digitally acquired image
> needs sharpening before printing, whether it's a scanned negative, slide
> or print or an image from a digital camera.
>
> Jon.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 6:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

> I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
> detail and alter colour.

That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop, convert
the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
channels are unaffected.

As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's the
case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
in doing it.

That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening isn't
my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
it's common knowledge.

> ...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
> not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.

My comment was based on you saying:

> ...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
> off the memory card to the printer...

No mention of correction.

Jon.
August 9, 2005 1:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:
> I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose detail
> and alter colour. I had no problem with the sharpness of the pic's it was
> loss of detail in delicate colours, and that was with a top of the range
> compact Olympus C70. the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction
> with gear I could not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a
> memory card. They send proofs of before and after correction, I might just
> add at a price of course which is fair enough as with a wedding you only get
> one shot.
>
I thought you were using a dslr - not a compact digital.
Would you expect a 38 - 190mm zoom to perform well on your f4?
Apart from this, lack of accutance and resolution loss through
diffraction (which will kick in at f4 for 7mp on a tiny 7.2mm x 5.35mm
sensor) is normal for these cameras. Noise reduction as well as other
in-camera processing to remove/reduce CA and purple fringing will lose
more detail.
I suspect that to use the camera for the best retention of detail, then
shoot (ideally in raw mode if you can be bothered with the hassle) at
lowest iso, in aperture priority mode with aperture set larger than
f4.5. If shooting in RAW mode, then underexpose deliberately by 1/3 stop
or so to reduce the chance of blown highlights (you can adjust exposure
carefully post processing the raw file)
Image editing programs, and tools to convert raw files are available free.
Getting 35mm challenging results from a compact camera is not an easy
task. Forget about the number of pixels defining resolution. The
compact camera is as different a format from your 35mm or a dslr, as
they are different to your medium format gear.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 3:55:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Jon is absolutely correct regarding the need for unsharp masking of
digitally acquired files. They all require it to differing degrees. It
gets somewhat complicated, but it has to do with trying to limit
sampling errors during the acquisition of the image file, and then
correcting for the softness which is created in that earlier process to
return sharpness to the image.

Art

Jon O'Brien wrote:

> In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
>
>
>>I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
>>detail and alter colour.
>
>
> That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop, convert
> the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
> channels are unaffected.
>
> As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
> image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's the
> case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
> emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
> in doing it.
>
> That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening isn't
> my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
> years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
> it's common knowledge.
>
>
>>...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
>>not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.
>
>
> My comment was based on you saying:
>
>
>>...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
>>off the memory card to the printer...
>
>
> No mention of correction.
>
> Jon.
August 10, 2005 1:54:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Apart from my own view and experience of film versus digi your view just
confirms that film is in front against digi for such work.

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:iR0Ke.157986$%K2.119424@pd7tw1no...
> Jon is absolutely correct regarding the need for unsharp masking of
> digitally acquired files. They all require it to differing degrees. It
> gets somewhat complicated, but it has to do with trying to limit
> sampling errors during the acquisition of the image file, and then
> correcting for the softness which is created in that earlier process to
> return sharpness to the image.
>
> Art
>
> Jon O'Brien wrote:
>
> > In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> > photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
> >>detail and alter colour.
> >
> >
> > That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop,
convert
> > the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
> > channels are unaffected.
> >
> > As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
> > image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's
the
> > case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
> > emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
> > in doing it.
> >
> > That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening
isn't
> > my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
> > years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
> > it's common knowledge.
> >
> >
> >>...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
> >>not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.
> >
> >
> > My comment was based on you saying:
> >
> >
> >>...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
> >>off the memory card to the printer...
> >
> >
> > No mention of correction.
> >
> > Jon.
August 10, 2005 2:26:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I follow what you are saying, but from using the digi and using the F4 for
the extra shots like the child with ice cream all over it's face at the
reception and many other shots of that nature, my posts have never suggested
that the either the digi or F4 was to be used for the serious stuff.

The Nikon used an 85mm lens and the C70 used it own 38-190mm and took
photos throughout the range, all I am saying and have ever said is that the
Nikon gave me a series of photo's that were better than the digi.
Irrespective of what specs have been written the Nikon won hands down. Again
I refer to my reference to the Canon 1ds/2.

The shots with the C70 were good enough for the wedding pages in the local
press, but that's about all and looked great printed on my own Epson 2100
but that's it and compared the Nikon film camera no contest.

You hit the nail on the head in you last paragraph, all I have ever written
confirms this in practice.

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1123538150.572057@ftpsrv1...
> Shooter wrote:
> > I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
detail
> > and alter colour. I had no problem with the sharpness of the pic's it
was
> > loss of detail in delicate colours, and that was with a top of the range
> > compact Olympus C70. the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction
> > with gear I could not afford so they get the very best out of a file on
a
> > memory card. They send proofs of before and after correction, I might
just
> > add at a price of course which is fair enough as with a wedding you only
get
> > one shot.
> >
> I thought you were using a dslr - not a compact digital.
> Would you expect a 38 - 190mm zoom to perform well on your f4?
> Apart from this, lack of accutance and resolution loss through
> diffraction (which will kick in at f4 for 7mp on a tiny 7.2mm x 5.35mm
> sensor) is normal for these cameras. Noise reduction as well as other
> in-camera processing to remove/reduce CA and purple fringing will lose
> more detail.
> I suspect that to use the camera for the best retention of detail, then
> shoot (ideally in raw mode if you can be bothered with the hassle) at
> lowest iso, in aperture priority mode with aperture set larger than
> f4.5. If shooting in RAW mode, then underexpose deliberately by 1/3 stop
> or so to reduce the chance of blown highlights (you can adjust exposure
> carefully post processing the raw file)
> Image editing programs, and tools to convert raw files are available free.
> Getting 35mm challenging results from a compact camera is not an easy
> task. Forget about the number of pixels defining resolution. The
> compact camera is as different a format from your 35mm or a dslr, as
> they are different to your medium format gear.
August 10, 2005 3:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Shooter wrote:
> I follow what you are saying, but from using the digi and using the F4 for
> the extra shots like the child with ice cream all over it's face at the
> reception and many other shots of that nature, my posts have never suggested
> that the either the digi or F4 was to be used for the serious stuff.
>
> The Nikon used an 85mm lens and the C70 used it own 38-190mm and took
> photos throughout the range, all I am saying and have ever said is that the
> Nikon gave me a series of photo's that were better than the digi.
> Irrespective of what specs have been written the Nikon won hands down. Again
> I refer to my reference to the Canon 1ds/2.
>
> The shots with the C70 were good enough for the wedding pages in the local
> press, but that's about all and looked great printed on my own Epson 2100
> but that's it and compared the Nikon film camera no contest.
>
> You hit the nail on the head in you last paragraph, all I have ever written
> confirms this in practice.
>

You might find this of interest:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d...
A comparison of a 3.3mp dslr to Fuji Provia 100f 35mm. The digital won
hands down in the writer's opinion. I find that quite fascinating.
About one year before this was published, Luminous Landscape published
an article based on theory, which concluded that 14mp was required to
roughly equal 35mm film. This sort of figure is still quoted, yet it
conflicts with everything that I have seen. The performance of the old
Canon D30 is well surpassed in every way (lenses permitting) by any new
entry level dslr.
August 10, 2005 4:06:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Thanks for the link Frederick, I am sure you and others are correct in that
digital will be the system to use in the future. I am always suspicious of
the camera makers and the writers as it is easy for a camera to be tested
that has been pulled out of production and batch tested for the test and
that some writers may have an advantage to writing in the way they do. The
only way is to get hold of the camera and test it ones self, but that's the
name of the game so it will continue to be that way.

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1123631709.166246@ftpsrv1...
> Shooter wrote:
> > I follow what you are saying, but from using the digi and using the F4
for
> > the extra shots like the child with ice cream all over it's face at the
> > reception and many other shots of that nature, my posts have never
suggested
> > that the either the digi or F4 was to be used for the serious stuff.
> >
> > The Nikon used an 85mm lens and the C70 used it own 38-190mm and took
> > photos throughout the range, all I am saying and have ever said is that
the
> > Nikon gave me a series of photo's that were better than the digi.
> > Irrespective of what specs have been written the Nikon won hands down.
Again
> > I refer to my reference to the Canon 1ds/2.
> >
> > The shots with the C70 were good enough for the wedding pages in the
local
> > press, but that's about all and looked great printed on my own Epson
2100
> > but that's it and compared the Nikon film camera no contest.
> >
> > You hit the nail on the head in you last paragraph, all I have ever
written
> > confirms this in practice.
> >
>
> You might find this of interest:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d...
> A comparison of a 3.3mp dslr to Fuji Provia 100f 35mm. The digital won
> hands down in the writer's opinion. I find that quite fascinating.
> About one year before this was published, Luminous Landscape published
> an article based on theory, which concluded that 14mp was required to
> roughly equal 35mm film. This sort of figure is still quoted, yet it
> conflicts with everything that I have seen. The performance of the old
> Canon D30 is well surpassed in every way (lenses permitting) by any new
> entry level dslr.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm not arguing one or the other, I still use both, and each has its
advantages.

However, one of the "flaws" in film is grain, something digital doesn't
have. Further, for color balancing the light source, digital has simple
automated options.

Digital allows for cheap experimentation, as well.

Art

Shooter wrote:

> Apart from my own view and experience of film versus digi your view just
> confirms that film is in front against digi for such work.
>
> "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:iR0Ke.157986$%K2.119424@pd7tw1no...
>
>>Jon is absolutely correct regarding the need for unsharp masking of
>>digitally acquired files. They all require it to differing degrees. It
>>gets somewhat complicated, but it has to do with trying to limit
>>sampling errors during the acquisition of the image file, and then
>>correcting for the softness which is created in that earlier process to
>>return sharpness to the image.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>Jon O'Brien wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
>>>photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
>>>>detail and alter colour.
>>>
>>>
>>>That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop,
>
> convert
>
>>>the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
>>>channels are unaffected.
>>>
>>>As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
>>>image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's
>
> the
>
>>>case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
>>>emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
>>>in doing it.
>>>
>>>That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening
>
> isn't
>
>>>my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
>>>years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
>>>it's common knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
>>>>not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.
>>>
>>>
>>>My comment was based on you saying:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
>>>>off the memory card to the printer...
>>>
>>>
>>>No mention of correction.
>>>
>>>Jon.
>
>
>
!