Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson 2200 still a good choice?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:26:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with Ultrachrome
inks still the best alternate? Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?
Output = primarily color photographs.

Thanx,
Wm

(LAshooter at hotmail)

More about : epson 2200 good choice

Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:26:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:26:29 GMT, "LAshooter" <lashooter@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with Ultrachrome
>inks still the best alternate? Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?
>Output = primarily color photographs.


You might consider the HP DesignJet 30, 130, or
the 90 (the newest of this series, just announced.)

The DJ 30 offers the same print size as the
Epson 2200, and archival prints using dye inks.

It has an ink-delivery system like the "pro"
Epsons (ie., large stationary carts) and is
very frugal with ink consumption. It has
user-replaceable heads. And you can buy it now.

The DesignJet 90 will compete directly with
the Epson 4000 (18" wide prints) at around
half the cost (around $1K street price.)

The R1800 will probably beat the HPs in gamut,
and will probably do a better job on "fine art"
and matte papers than the HPs.

The R1800 will be slower than the HPs.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 11, 2005 8:26:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <9_9Yd.902611$Zm5.130497@news.easynews.com>,
"LAshooter" <lashooter@hotmail.com> wrote:

> For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with Ultrachrome
> inks still the best alternate? Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?
> Output = primarily color photographs.
>
> Thanx,
> Wm
>
> (LAshooter at hotmail)

Just read a direct comparison between the Epson and the new HP's....It
said the Epson was better with B&W using a RIP program, than the HP. It
gave the overall nod to the Epson with th eHP closely behind. It also
said the HP carts were very small compared to the Epsons...I have a 2200
and love it.

JR
Related resources
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:01:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If glossy is your bag don't get the 2200. Anything but glossy on this one is
fantastic.


"LAshooter" <lashooter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9_9Yd.902611$Zm5.130497@news.easynews.com...
> For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with Ultrachrome
> inks still the best alternate? Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?
> Output = primarily color photographs.
>
> Thanx,
> Wm
>
> (LAshooter at hotmail)
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:00:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with
Ultrachrome
>inks still the best alternate?

For printing on non-glossy fine art papers, probably.

>Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?

You might find this comparison of the 2200 vs R1800 by an Epson dealer
of interest. Basically he feels the R1800 replaces the 1280 and does
better on glossy photo paper, while the 2200 does better with fine art
papers. http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_02-21-05.html

Bill
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 12:31:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:51:32 -0800, JR <jrhone@mac.com.invalid> wrote:


>Just read a direct comparison between the Epson and the new HP's....It
>said the Epson was better with B&W using a RIP program, than the HP. It
>gave the overall nod to the Epson with th eHP closely behind. It also
>said the HP carts were very small compared to the Epsons...I have a 2200
>and love it.


The Epsons are better for BW because of the
availability of 3rd party inks and RIPS.

The HP carts are much bigger than those in
the 2200, but smaller than those in the Epson
4000 or 7x00 series.

In any case, I've vowed not to use any more
inkjet printers with tiny carts.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 6:26:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"LAshooter" <lashooter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9_9Yd.902611$Zm5.130497@news.easynews.com...
> For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with Ultrachrome
> inks still the best alternate? Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?
> Output = primarily color photographs.
>
> Thanx,
> Wm
>
> (LAshooter at hotmail)
>
>
>

LOVE my Epson 2200. I use it, Epson inks and Ink Press pro chrome luster
paper (www.inkpresspaper.com they provide profiles etc)
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:04:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Going slightly off topic:
I am among the 20% of white males with colorblindness (I miss 15 of
the 18 plates in an Ishihara test).

The Point: Any recommendations on a combination of printer, profiles
and paper that do not need a lot of tweaking? I have done cosiderable
custom printing in the darkroom but have not taken the plunge to
printing color photographs on a printer.

Thanks
Mike

On 11 Mar 2005 08:00:21 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>>For someone who can't afford an Epson 4000, is the 2200 with
>Ultrachrome
>>inks still the best alternate?
>
>For printing on non-glossy fine art papers, probably.
>
>>Or is the new R1800 (?) a better option?
>
>You might find this comparison of the 2200 vs R1800 by an Epson dealer
>of interest. Basically he feels the R1800 replaces the 1280 and does
>better on glossy photo paper, while the 2200 does better with fine art
>papers. http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_02-21-05.html
>
>Bill
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Film wrote:

> Going slightly off topic:
> I am among the 20% of white males with colorblindness (I miss 15 of
> the 18 plates in an Ishihara test).
>
> The Point: Any recommendations on a combination of printer, profiles
> and paper that do not need a lot of tweaking? I have done cosiderable
> custom printing in the darkroom but have not taken the plunge to
> printing color photographs on a printer.


Your best bet in this case is simply
to go with the manufacturer's ink and
media. Ie., for an Epson printer, just
use Epson inks and Epson paper.

And it goes without saying that you
should calibrate your monitor, at the
very least with Adobe Gamma (or similar)
or a dedicated measuring device (eg.,
Spyder or Gretag Eye-One.)

There is no *easy* solution once you
start dealing with printer profiles.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:58:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have to agree. Glossy is okay until you catch the slightest glare,
which case the print looks wrong...

I use the Epson luster paper and it look terrific.

-=-Joe

In article <NuaYd.10286$m31.114284@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

> If glossy is your bag don't get the 2200. Anything but glossy on this one is
> fantastic.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:42:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eager" <DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com> wrote in message
news:110320051258576509%DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com...
>
> I have to agree. Glossy is okay until you catch the slightest glare,
> which case the print looks wrong...
>
> I use the Epson luster paper and it look terrific.

I've tried to love my 2200 with luster. Do you frame behind glass? To me it
looks OK holding it in your hand but that's about it.

>
> -=-Joe
>
> In article <NuaYd.10286$m31.114284@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>
>> If glossy is your bag don't get the 2200. Anything but glossy on this one
>> is
>> fantastic.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:42:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4pnYd.10370$m31.114909@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

> I've tried to love my 2200 with luster. Do you frame behind glass? To me it
> looks OK holding it in your hand but that's about it.

I do frame behind glass, and it looks great. Looks great either behind
glass or not, to me. What are you seeing?

-=-Joe
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:38:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eager" <DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com> wrote in message
news:120320050842170493%DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com...
> In article <4pnYd.10370$m31.114909@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>
>> I've tried to love my 2200 with luster. Do you frame behind glass? To me
>> it
>> looks OK holding it in your hand but that's about it.
>
> I do frame behind glass, and it looks great. Looks great either behind
> glass or not, to me. What are you seeing?


Compared the matte, the premium luster was too reflective at most angles for
me. Granted I only mounted it for a minute to make this decision and have
used matte ever since (OK, I've only had the printer 60 days, so what do I
know? :-)
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 3:59:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3eRYd.10596$m31.115667@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

> Compared the matte, the premium luster was too reflective at most angles for
> me. Granted I only mounted it for a minute to make this decision and have
> used matte ever since (OK, I've only had the printer 60 days, so what do I
> know? :-)

I thought the matte paper didn't get the dark blacks I wanted. Now
that've been using the printer for about 8 months, I may want to try
again, but that means I'll have to install the matte black cart and
reinstall the print drivers. For OS X, Epson says you have to
completely reinstall (which isn't horribly bothersome, but still...)

-=-Joe
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:07:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eager" <DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com> wrote in message
news:130320050759142531%DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com...
> In article <3eRYd.10596$m31.115667@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>
>> Compared the matte, the premium luster was too reflective at most angles
>> for
>> me. Granted I only mounted it for a minute to make this decision and have
>> used matte ever since (OK, I've only had the printer 60 days, so what do
>> I
>> know? :-)
>
> I thought the matte paper didn't get the dark blacks I wanted. Now
> that've been using the printer for about 8 months, I may want to try
> again, but that means I'll have to install the matte black cart and
> reinstall the print drivers. For OS X, Epson says you have to
> completely reinstall (which isn't horribly bothersome, but still...)
>

Completely reinstall? What, the software drivers? Ouch.

Looks like you were right: I just printed some luster because I still have
like 30 sheets and just to clear the nozzles after the printer has sat for a
couple weeks and the prints look pretty good.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 5:08:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8ctZd.10796$m31.117084@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

> Completely reinstall? What, the software drivers? Ouch.

Yep, the software drivers. I mean, maybe that only takes ten minutes,
but sheesh.

-=-Joe
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:09:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eager" <DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com> wrote in message
news:150320050908435409%DONTEVEN@TRYTOWRITE.com...
> In article <8ctZd.10796$m31.117084@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>
>> Completely reinstall? What, the software drivers? Ouch.
>
> Yep, the software drivers. I mean, maybe that only takes ten minutes,
> but sheesh.

I hear ya. I switched and didn't even have to close Photoshop.
!