Epson R800 vs R1800

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

Piemanlager wrote:

>Having not had a home printer for about 4-5 years I know have a pair of R300
>printers. To say I was amazed at how much quality has improved with home
>printers and the fact I can produce an a4 print that, so far, all of my
>wedding customers cant tell the difference between that done on the r300 and
>a £75,000 high street digital lab is an understatement. Of course the R300
>is not quite archival enough (Epson Uk told me 15 years with Epsom ink &
>paper) for producing album prints although the quality is good enough.
>
>I was intending to buy the r800 for archival (75+ years? Epson claimed) home
>printing for prints up to A4, mostly though I would have been using it to
>produce 6 x 8 inch prints for wedding photos. Then comes the R1800. Now I
>dont get many requests for bigger prints, i.e 18 x 12 inch, but the thaught
>of being able to do them at home is tempting.
>So, have those that have made the switch from R800- R1800 noticed a great
>deal of difference and apart from bigger than A4 prints, was it worth it?
>An answer that I, a simple idiot when it comes to most things digital / home
>printing can understand would be appreciated. I would want to do some Black
>& White printing too so any thaughts there?
>
>
>
They are supposed to have the same print engine. The R1800 being a wide
format version of the R800. I do not think the difference is all that
much and you might be more comfortable to have the added flexibility.
By having that capability you might be encouraged to make a sample and
sell more thus recouping your cost. Except for paper I think the
operating cost is the same. I know you want better longevity but I
think the Canon i9900 produces a more vivid more stunning print.

Besides on the question of longevity, my wedding album faded with very
little viewing and stored in a cool dark place in about 20 years and
that was wet process before inkjet printers were even invented.

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

> Besides on the question of longevity, my wedding album faded with very
> little viewing and stored in a cool dark place in about 20 years and that
> was wet process before inkjet printers were even invented.

Thats bad luck, our album is almost 25 years old and as sharp, bright and
crisp as the day it was handed to us. Have you tried going back to the
photographer?

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

"Piemanlager" <simon.nospamevans2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BeZ7e.4614$v82.4505@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>...

> > My R1800 was ordered today.
> >
> >
>
>
> Thanks, I will be looking for one too now!



I have had mine just over a week now and it is producing stunning
results.

I am not one for necessarily using the 'in the box' software but the
raw print utility works exceptionally well with my D70 NEF files and
even blowing the image to A3+ gives no discernible degradation of
image.

I was a little worried about a calculation that someone did on ink
usage but after a dozen or more A3+ images in full Colour and 6 in
black and white on a variety of papers including matt archival, the
cmy tanks show just over half and the rest show almost no movement,
considering the fact that quite a lot of ink is used in charging the
system the first time you use it this is excellent.

It is also quick, although I have not timed it, it takes less time to
give me an A3 than the R300 to give me an A4.


John Worsfold