Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson 4800 Questions

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:35:12 PM

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

Hi,

I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is the
Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have read, though
when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I will make
room for it if it is something I should have. I have been regularly using
the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to print 16 x
20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local custom photo lab
recently and talked to some guys there who tried to dissuade me from buying
one. I don't know if they were telling me the truth or feeding me with
stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They said the cost of running one
and maintenance would be high. Is this true? They said I would constantly
have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc and have special software, etc.
Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing versus
the 1280? I have heard that you initially have to spend $100 in ink filling
in the heads or something and then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above
is true, I would still like to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is
supposed to replace it or something else(any suggestions?)


Thanks,

Rick Baker

http://www.rickbakerimages.com

More about : epson 4800 questions

Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:49:51 PM

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

I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are the
differences between these and is it going to be a vastly different operating
experience over the 1280?

thanks




"Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%Uose.88353$yV4.74343@okepread03...
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is
> the Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have read,
> though when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I will
> make room for it if it is something I should have. I have been regularly
> using the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to
> print 16 x 20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local
> custom photo lab recently and talked to some guys there who tried to
> dissuade me from buying one. I don't know if they were telling me the
> truth or feeding me with stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They
> said the cost of running one and maintenance would be high. Is this true?
> They said I would constantly have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc
> and have special software, etc. Is is going to be a vastly different
> experience running this thing versus the 1280? I have heard that you
> initially have to spend $100 in ink filling in the heads or something and
> then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above is true, I would still like
> to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is supposed to replace it or
> something else(any suggestions?)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Baker
>
> http://www.rickbakerimages.com
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 12:42:05 AM

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

>Gregory Blank writes ...
>
>Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
>or 112.00 each for 220ml

These are the MSRP numbers ... a 20 sec search turns up $59.95 for the
110 ml and $95.95 for the 220 ml carts from inkjetart.com ... probably
$5 less at Digital Art Supply. At these sizes the carts last many
months and hundreds of prints, I've found.

>If you want consistent scan to print functionality
>or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.

I have the 4000 and the Epson profiles for the Epson papers are
extremely accurate, so this is not true. If you want to use 3rd party
papers then their profiles don't seem all that good (I've tried Moab,
Arches and Hahnemuehle) and you will probably need to get a custom
profile built for you or buy the gear to do it yourself, but Epson now
has recently brought out 17x22" sheet papers for the 4000 and 4800 so
you don't really need to do that anymore.

Bill
Related resources
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 12:47:18 AM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118979725.063514.156720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Gregory Blank writes ...
>>
>>Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
>>or 112.00 each for 220ml
>
> These are the MSRP numbers ... a 20 sec search turns up $59.95 for the
> 110 ml and $95.95 for the 220 ml carts from inkjetart.com ... probably
> $5 less at Digital Art Supply. At these sizes the carts last many
> months and hundreds of prints, I've found.
>
>>If you want consistent scan to print functionality
>>or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
>
> I have the 4000 and the Epson profiles for the Epson papers are
> extremely accurate, so this is not true. If you want to use 3rd party
> papers then their profiles don't seem all that good (I've tried Moab,
> Arches and Hahnemuehle) and you will probably need to get a custom
> profile built for you or buy the gear to do it yourself, but Epson now
> has recently brought out 17x22" sheet papers for the 4000 and 4800 so
> you don't really need to do that anymore.
>
> Bill

Agree 100% with Bill here.

And... I highly recokmmend www.DigitalArtSupply.com
-Mark
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:03:11 AM

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

> Rick Baker writes ...
>
>Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing
> (Epson 4800) versus the 1280?

I have the 4000 and also a 1280 and a 2200 ... the 4000 is as simple to
run as the other two from Photoshop, except there are more paper
options to keep track of and with the thicker papers you have to load
the paper in the correct slot, sort of like Velvet Fine Art with the
2200, which has to be loaded flat from the back. Also there's an
overflow ink tank that has to be changed out eventually (after a year
I'm half full, but one day I know I'll have to swap it out ...) ...
doesn't look too hard though. Also if you use roll paper and the
cutter eventually you'll have to replace the cutter, but again for a
serious hobbyist like us it's a 3 year wait, probably.

>I have heard that you initially have to spend $100 in ink filling
>in the heads or something and then it's like 50 cents/11x14.

Both true, at least for me with the 4000.

>I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are
>the differences between these

The 4800 with the new K3 inks does a better job on glossy papers and
with black/white, according to the reviews. If you're printing color
on fine art papers then the 4000 is fine but if you want to do both
fine art papers and glossy papers then the 4800 sounds like a better
deal. I wish I had the 4800 myself but I'm sure my wife would pitch a
fit if I got it without selling the 4000 first :) 

For the differences, check this article by Joe Holmes, it's about the
9800 but that's using the same inks, just with a wider 44" carriage ...
http://www.josephholmes.com/news.html

>and is it going to be a vastly different operating
>experience over the 1280?

Once you figure out the paper paths I'd say no ... the software
interface via Photoshop is practically identical with the earlier
Epsons I use.

>So, is calibration absolutely essential for good prints?

Not if you use the Epson papers and their profiles ... Epson was
embarrassed with the 9600/7600 when digital guru Bill Atkinson
developed custom profiles for those printers and gave them away (they
were much better than the Epson ones) so they went to school with him
and did a much better job with the 4000 and with these new printers as
well. The 4000 profiles give much better print matching than what I've
used with the 2200, much less the 1280 (which is poorly gray balanced).

Bill
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:34:08 AM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118980991.058546.175930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Rick Baker writes ...
>>
>>Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing
>> (Epson 4800) versus the 1280?
>
> I have the 4000 and also a 1280 and a 2200 ... the 4000 is as simple to
> run as the other two from Photoshop, except there are more paper
> options to keep track of and with the thicker papers you have to load
> the paper in the correct slot, sort of like Velvet Fine Art with the
> 2200, which has to be loaded flat from the back. Also there's an
> overflow ink tank that has to be changed out eventually (after a year
> I'm half full, but one day I know I'll have to swap it out ...) ...
> doesn't look too hard though.

It's as simple as pulling out the "drawer" (which is basically what the
overflow tank is), and sliding in the replacement.
DONE.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 4:30:04 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

> "Gregory Blank" <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
> news:bugstopped_-66E4B2.21281416062005@news.verizon.net...

>> Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
>> daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.
>
> No you don't.
> Being a "pro printer" only means that it's catoring to special needs of
> large volume, high-standard users.
> It also means it's built like a tank (which it is).
> You can keep the same ink cartridges in the printer for up to a year without
> problems, and that means you don't have to be running huge prints all the
> time.

I thought the spec was to use the ink within six months of opening the
seal? That may not be right for the new inkset, they may have relaxed
that requirement.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 4:30:05 AM

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

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2hdfxk0tf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
>> "Gregory Blank" <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
>> news:bugstopped_-66E4B2.21281416062005@news.verizon.net...
>
>>> Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
>>> daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.
>>
>> No you don't.
>> Being a "pro printer" only means that it's catoring to special needs of
>> large volume, high-standard users.
>> It also means it's built like a tank (which it is).
>> You can keep the same ink cartridges in the printer for up to a year
>> without
>> problems, and that means you don't have to be running huge prints all the
>> time.
>
> I thought the spec was to use the ink within six months of opening the
> seal? That may not be right for the new inkset, they may have relaxed
> that requirement.

I think that's indeed the "spec," but if you remove the cartridge and rock
it back and forth, you should be able to extend well beyond that. I've been
using mine for over 8 months, and still have one of my original cartridges
with no problems (even without rocking). According to Digital Art Supply,
there are some substances in the ink which can have a tendency to settle.
Rocking helps to prevent this. I don't know if this is 100% accurate or
not, but it makes sense.

I tend to believe most published recommendations/specs are carefully given
somewhere well cushioned WITHIN the safety zone.
-Just like dates on food, etc.

Could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:19:16 AM

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

In article <M6pse.88354$yV4.57510@okepread03>,
"Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote:

> I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are the
> differences between these and is it going to be a vastly different operating
> experience over the 1280?
>
> thanks

The 4800 is more money, but is the current model- MSRP
$1995.00

Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
or 112.00 each for 220ml

Usually the paper alone for inkjets is about 50 cents each
then add the ink cost.

If you want consistent scan to print functionality
or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.

A good calibration device may run 1,000+

This does not count if you need a rip for lots of prints
or the various extended service policies.

Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.

>
> "Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%Uose.88353$yV4.74343@okepread03...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is
> > the Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have read,
> > though when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I will
> > make room for it if it is something I should have. I have been regularly
> > using the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to
> > print 16 x 20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local
> > custom photo lab recently and talked to some guys there who tried to
> > dissuade me from buying one. I don't know if they were telling me the
> > truth or feeding me with stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They
> > said the cost of running one and maintenance would be high. Is this true?
> > They said I would constantly have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc
> > and have special software, etc. Is is going to be a vastly different
> > experience running this thing versus the 1280? I have heard that you
> > initially have to spend $100 in ink filling in the heads or something and
> > then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above is true, I would still like
> > to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is supposed to replace it or
> > something else(any suggestions?)
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rick Baker
> >
> > http://www.rickbakerimages.com
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:19:17 AM

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

> If you want consistent scan to print functionality
> or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
> That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.

Is this any different than the 1280? As long as I can get the consistency
of the 1280, that's fine with me. I make a ton of prints with my 1280, so
it would definitely be used. So, is calibration absolutely essential for
good prints? I am used to not getting exactly what I see on the screen when
I print, but it is good enough for me and anyone who purchases the prints.
I mean I purchased a lot of Color Vision's products awhile back including
monitor and print calibration(no spectro though) would this suffice? I
could spend an extra thousand for calibration device if really necessary.

thanks


"Gregory Blank" <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-66E4B2.21281416062005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <M6pse.88354$yV4.57510@okepread03>,
> "Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are the
>> differences between these and is it going to be a vastly different
>> operating
>> experience over the 1280?
>>
>> thanks
>
> The 4800 is more money, but is the current model- MSRP
> $1995.00
>
> Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
> or 112.00 each for 220ml
>
> Usually the paper alone for inkjets is about 50 cents each
> then add the ink cost.
>
> If you want consistent scan to print functionality
> or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
> That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.
>
> A good calibration device may run 1,000+
>
> This does not count if you need a rip for lots of prints
> or the various extended service policies.
>
> Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
> daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.
>
>>
>> "Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:%Uose.88353$yV4.74343@okepread03...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is
>> > the Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have
>> > read,
>> > though when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I
>> > will
>> > make room for it if it is something I should have. I have been
>> > regularly
>> > using the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to
>> > print 16 x 20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local
>> > custom photo lab recently and talked to some guys there who tried to
>> > dissuade me from buying one. I don't know if they were telling me the
>> > truth or feeding me with stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They
>> > said the cost of running one and maintenance would be high. Is this
>> > true?
>> > They said I would constantly have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc
>> > and have special software, etc. Is is going to be a vastly different
>> > experience running this thing versus the 1280? I have heard that you
>> > initially have to spend $100 in ink filling in the heads or something
>> > and
>> > then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above is true, I would still
>> > like
>> > to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is supposed to replace it
>> > or
>> > something else(any suggestions?)
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Rick Baker
>> >
>> > http://www.rickbakerimages.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> --
> LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
> is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:19:17 AM

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

"Gregory Blank" <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-66E4B2.21281416062005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <M6pse.88354$yV4.57510@okepread03>,
> "Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are the
>> differences between these and is it going to be a vastly different
>> operating
>> experience over the 1280?
>>
>> thanks
>
> The 4800 is more money, but is the current model- MSRP
> $1995.00
>
> Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
> or 112.00 each for 220ml
>
> Usually the paper alone for inkjets is about 50 cents each
> then add the ink cost.
>
> If you want consistent scan to print functionality
> or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
> That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.
>
> A good calibration device may run 1,000+

Disagree.
I'm getting perfectly calibrated prints from my 4000, and have therefore
postponed purchase of calibration device.

>
> This does not count if you need a rip for lots of prints
> or the various extended service policies.
>
> Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
> daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.

No you don't.
Being a "pro printer" only means that it's catoring to special needs of
large volume, high-standard users.
It also means it's built like a tank (which it is).
You can keep the same ink cartridges in the printer for up to a year without
problems, and that means you don't have to be running huge prints all the
time.
There are many many people other than pros who need/want to print wider than
13" (afforded by 2200, etc.).
"Justification" becomes more and more easily obtained when you recognize
that you're basically getting a built-in continuous ink system.

I recommend that anyone interested in wide prints seriously consider the
4000/4800, and that those specifically interested in B&W printing go with
the 4800.
-Mark

>
>>
>> "Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:%Uose.88353$yV4.74343@okepread03...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is
>> > the Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have
>> > read,
>> > though when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I
>> > will
>> > make room for it if it is something I should have. I have been
>> > regularly
>> > using the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to
>> > print 16 x 20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local
>> > custom photo lab recently and talked to some guys there who tried to
>> > dissuade me from buying one. I don't know if they were telling me the
>> > truth or feeding me with stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They
>> > said the cost of running one and maintenance would be high. Is this
>> > true?
>> > They said I would constantly have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc
>> > and have special software, etc. Is is going to be a vastly different
>> > experience running this thing versus the 1280? I have heard that you
>> > initially have to spend $100 in ink filling in the heads or something
>> > and
>> > then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above is true, I would still
>> > like
>> > to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is supposed to replace it
>> > or
>> > something else(any suggestions?)
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Rick Baker
>> >
>> > http://www.rickbakerimages.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> --
> LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
> is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:20:59 PM

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

>Gregory Blank writes ...
>
>I am referring to gang proofed images.

Ah, OK ... sorry ... I was assuming Rick will be using the printer
mainly for fine art prints up to 16x20", which is what I was referring
to ...
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:53:22 PM

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

Thanks for all the information. I wondered if my lab was feeding me B.S. so
they wouldn't lose business. I will likely be getting a 4000 or 4800 in the
near future.


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:0psse.11182$6o4.8722@fed1read04...
>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118980991.058546.175930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Rick Baker writes ...
>>>
>>>Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing
>>> (Epson 4800) versus the 1280?
>>
>> I have the 4000 and also a 1280 and a 2200 ... the 4000 is as simple to
>> run as the other two from Photoshop, except there are more paper
>> options to keep track of and with the thicker papers you have to load
>> the paper in the correct slot, sort of like Velvet Fine Art with the
>> 2200, which has to be loaded flat from the back. Also there's an
>> overflow ink tank that has to be changed out eventually (after a year
>> I'm half full, but one day I know I'll have to swap it out ...) ...
>> doesn't look too hard though.
>
> It's as simple as pulling out the "drawer" (which is basically what the
> overflow tank is), and sliding in the replacement.
> DONE.
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:42:36 PM

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

>Gregory Blank asks ...
>
>I'll ask you the same question I asked Mark, the 4800 you can remove
>the cartridges from and then put them back?.....Unlike the 1280?

Yes, you can remove them and put them back in and the chip in the cart
keeps score of amount of ink left, date, etc.

>Seems That would be a huge incentive to purchase it.

I'm not sure why this is a 'huge incentive' ... the only reason I take
the 4000 carts out is to gently swirl each of them each time I replace
any one of them to keep the inks from settling. The only other reason
I can think of is if you are moving the printer (they recommend keeping
a set of empty carts for this).

Bill
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:04:04 PM

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

In article <_jtse.11189$6o4.10720@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> I think that's indeed the "spec," but if you remove the cartridge and rock
> it back and forth, you should be able to extend well beyond that. I've been
> using mine for over 8 months, and still have one of my original cartridges
> with no problems (even without rocking). According to Digital Art Supply,
> there are some substances in the ink which can have a tendency to settle.
> Rocking helps to prevent this. I don't know if this is 100% accurate or
> not, but it makes sense.
>
> I tend to believe most published recommendations/specs are carefully given
> somewhere well cushioned WITHIN the safety zone.
> -Just like dates on food, etc.
>
> Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Huge plus you can take the cartridges out and then put back in?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:07:20 PM

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

In article <1118979725.063514.156720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> >Gregory Blank writes ...

> >If you want consistent scan to print functionality
> >or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
>
> I have the 4000 and the Epson profiles for the Epson papers are
> extremely accurate, so this is not true. If you want to use 3rd party
> papers then their profiles don't seem all that good (I've tried Moab,
> Arches and Hahnemuehle) and you will probably need to get a custom
> profile built for you or buy the gear to do it yourself, but Epson now
> has recently brought out 17x22" sheet papers for the 4000 and 4800 so
> you don't really need to do that anymore.
>
> Bill

I am referring to gang proofed images.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:09:37 PM

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

In article <mUpse.88364$yV4.50857@okepread03>,
"Rick Baker" <randgbaker@cox.net> wrote:

> > If you want consistent scan to print functionality
> > or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
> > That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.
>
> Is this any different than the 1280? As long as I can get the consistency
> of the 1280, that's fine with me. I make a ton of prints with my 1280, so
> it would definitely be used. So, is calibration absolutely essential for
> good prints? I am used to not getting exactly what I see on the screen when
> I print, but it is good enough for me and anyone who purchases the prints.
> I mean I purchased a lot of Color Vision's products awhile back including
> monitor and print calibration(no spectro though) would this suffice? I
> could spend an extra thousand for calibration device if really necessary.
>
> thanks

Referring to gang proofed images, and no its no different than the
1280, except this printer is a lot better in print life span and other
good stuff.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:14:54 AM

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

In article <1119025259.343706.253710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> >Gregory Blank writes ...
> >
> >I am referring to gang proofed images.
>
> Ah, OK ... sorry ... I was assuming Rick will be using the printer
> mainly for fine art prints up to 16x20", which is what I was referring
> to ...

I'll ask you the same question I asked Mark, the 4800 you can remove the
cartridges from and then put them back?.....Unlike the 1280?

Seems That would be a huge incentive to purchase it.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:40:56 AM

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

"Gregory Blank" <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-AD2061.12130517062005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <_jtse.11189$6o4.10720@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> I think that's indeed the "spec," but if you remove the cartridge and
>> rock
>> it back and forth, you should be able to extend well beyond that. I've
>> been
>> using mine for over 8 months, and still have one of my original
>> cartridges
>> with no problems (even without rocking). According to Digital Art
>> Supply,
>> there are some substances in the ink which can have a tendency to settle.
>> Rocking helps to prevent this. I don't know if this is 100% accurate or
>> not, but it makes sense.
>>
>> I tend to believe most published recommendations/specs are carefully
>> given
>> somewhere well cushioned WITHIN the safety zone.
>> -Just like dates on food, etc.
>>
>> Could be wrong, but I doubt it.
>
> Huge plus you can take the cartridges out and then put back in?

I don't know if you're officially supposed to or not, but I have without any
problems at all.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:51:03 AM

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

In article <1119044556.623284.244450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> >Gregory Blank asks ...
> >
> >I'll ask you the same question I asked Mark, the 4800 you can remove
> >the cartridges from and then put them back?.....Unlike the 1280?
>
> Yes, you can remove them and put them back in and the chip in the cart
> keeps score of amount of ink left, date, etc.
>
> >Seems That would be a huge incentive to purchase it.
>
> I'm not sure why this is a 'huge incentive' ... the only reason I take
> the 4000 carts out is to gently swirl each of them each time I replace
> any one of them to keep the inks from settling. The only other reason
> I can think of is if you are moving the printer (they recommend keeping
> a set of empty carts for this).
>
> Bill

To me with my 1280 it is, I have been at the point where I had about a
third of a cartridge left and needed to replace to complete a job of
several hundred small prints seamlessly, I felt rather annoyed that I
would be penalized for changing the cartridge by one losing a print or
two having to throw away ink in a 1/3 full cart.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:51:04 AM

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

"Gregory Blank" <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-FD7D40.22000317062005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1119044556.623284.244450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >Gregory Blank asks ...
>> >
>> >I'll ask you the same question I asked Mark, the 4800 you can remove
>> >the cartridges from and then put them back?.....Unlike the 1280?
>>
>> Yes, you can remove them and put them back in and the chip in the cart
>> keeps score of amount of ink left, date, etc.
>>
>> >Seems That would be a huge incentive to purchase it.
>>
>> I'm not sure why this is a 'huge incentive' ... the only reason I take
>> the 4000 carts out is to gently swirl each of them each time I replace
>> any one of them to keep the inks from settling. The only other reason
>> I can think of is if you are moving the printer (they recommend keeping
>> a set of empty carts for this).
>>
>> Bill
>
> To me with my 1280 it is, I have been at the point where I had about a
> third of a cartridge left and needed to replace to complete a job of
> several hundred small prints seamlessly, I felt rather annoyed that I
> would be penalized for changing the cartridge by one losing a print or
> two having to throw away ink in a 1/3 full cart.

I used to hate that with my 1270.
That becomes a thing of the past since the carts are individual colors,
rather than the 1280's multi-color jobs.
With my 1270, if I happened to do a lot of prints that were mostly sky blue,
then I'd run out of cyan and have to change carts...even though the other
colors were nearly full. What a waste of ink/money!
Most of Epson's newer printers have moved to individual carts...and for goo
reason.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 5:36:25 PM

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

Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

> To me with my 1280 it is, I have been at the point where I had about
> a third of a cartridge left and needed to replace to complete a job
> of several hundred small prints seamlessly, I felt rather annoyed
> that I would be penalized for changing the cartridge by one losing a
> print or two having to throw away ink in a 1/3 full cart.

The 7600 just stops when it runs out of ink. It then tells you which
cartridge to replace and carries on with the print that it's doing. I
would expect the 4800 to be very similar.

Andrew.
!