«

My apologies for writing a longer post than I intended.

My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink. Though I'm strictly an
amateur photographer, I'm not a casual "snap shooter." I travel a lot and
do as-yet amateur video travelogues which frequently incorporate still
montages. Besides being used in the videos (and doing standard-duty in
photo albums), I like to make large, high-quality enlargements of my travel
shots.

I'm getting rid of my color darkroom in favor of an all-digital (my purchase
of a Canon 10d was the key -- I'm comfortable that digital finally
approaches chemical film in quality). I don't sell my work -- just put them
up in my house and office and give them to friends who say, "Hey, nice
picture!" I routinely print 16 x 20 in the darkroom. 13 x 19 is close
enough, so the sub-$1000 printers will do nicely. I'm not concerned with
archival-quality. Whether the print lasts 10 years or 100 years doesn't
matter to me. I won't be around for the latter end of the spectrum, and if
a print starts to fade, I can always reprint it.

Which brings me to my concerns:

From the review that I read, the Epson 2200 is the printer of choice IF
you're doing fine-art prints on, specifically, Epson matte paper. I don't
want to be restricted in my paper choices and, as I've mentioned, I prefer
glossy prints. I also don't want to be in a situation where each print
costs me more than the same print if I used my chemcial darkroom; if the
Epson inks and papers are too costly, I'll never hear the end of it from my
wife. I understand that the Epson 2200 is also slow; I don't want to
spend 30 minutes waiting for a print to finish, when I can do a chemical
print in 10 minutes, though, I suppose, I can set up a print run at night
and wake in the morning to a stack of nice prints. Bronzing on glossy paper
is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?

The Epson 1280 was suggested by some people. Unfortunatley, I haven't been
able to find any comparison reviews (I wish dpreview.com covered printers).
Evidently, it is older technology than the 2200, but uses dyes, rather than
pigment inks. Just how good is it? The 2200 review implied that prints
from the 1280 aren't as bright, sharp or saturated. Are we talking about
barely-perceivable differences, or is the quality difference significant?
I'm only concerned with image quality -- I want prints that equal what I do
in the darkroom. If the 1280 can do this, then it might be a better choice.

And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage ink jets. Are
these for photo work? Any good?

Price isn't the driving concern, and I'd rather not compromise on quality if
it just means saving a couple of hundred dollars (though the cost of the
Epson 2200 is about as much as I'm willing to spend).

I'd really appreciate it if anyone can direct me to comparison reviews of
these printers. I'd also very much like to hear from any advanced amateurs
(or pros) who can give me an objective evaluation of the printers,
particularly as compared to chemcial photographic prints. I'm grateful to
those who've responded to my first post, but I'm hoping for a little more
detail if possible.

And, in return, if anyone wants any advice about digital video, I'd be happy
to oblige.

Thanks!

>From: "PTRAVEL"

>My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
>me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
>glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink.

If worried about the bronzing just use either the semi-gloss paper (which is
excellent) or the Luster.

http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_03-14-03.html for info on ink costs
(scroll down a bit) ... a bit over $3 for 11 x 16.5". Darn sight cheaper than
buying a custom Ilfochrome ...

>I'm not concerned with archival-quality. Whether the print
>lasts 10 years or 100 years doesn't matter to me.

The Epson 1280 or Canon S9000 would be fine for someone like you.

>From the review that I read, the Epson 2200 is the printer of choice IF
>you're doing fine-art prints on, specifically, Epson matte paper.

? Dunno where you heard this from but the part about matte paper is definitely
not true. The 7600 and 9600 use the same inks but it costs about $100 to
switch from matte black to photo black on them so owners tend to pick one ink
and stick with it. Almost all the guys I know using these printers are
printing landscapes on Semi-Gloss and portraits on Luster (except for the b/w
guys and people printing non-photo images like digital paintings, who seem to
prefer the matte black inks and art papers). And the matte has the shortest
print life of the six papers Epson supports. To my eye the Watercolor -
Brilliant White looks much better.

Matte HW is a top choice for people selling prints from the 1280 because it has
a longer print life than PGPP, but that doesn't matter to you.

>I understand that the Epson 2200 is also slow; I don't want to
>spend 30 minutes waiting for a print to finish, when I can do a chemical
>print in 10 minutes

I think it takes me 7-8 minutes most of the time, maybe 15 minutes for a 12 x
18" print ... speeds up if you use the USB or Firewire ports rather than the
parallel port.

>The Epson 1280 was suggested by some people. Unfortunatley, I haven't been
>able to find any comparison reviews ... Evidently, it is older technology than
the 2200,
> but uses dyes, rather than pigment inks. Just how good is it? The 2200
review
> implied that prints from the 1280 aren't as bright, sharp or saturated.

If you're really losing sleep over this go to this site and blow $45 and order
four test prints, two each from the 2200 and 1280 on papers of interest, and
compare them directly so you can decide for yourself. That's what I did when
the 2200 first came out (I already had the 1280) ... I bought the 2200 too
after comparing image quality, which seemed very comparable (but I wanted the
longer print life).

http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/

They will print the test image on 7 different papers for you for a fee. You
will learn more from looking at the test prints than from posting 20 more
questions on the newsgroups.

>And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage ink jets. Are
>these for photo work? Any good?

Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.

>I'd really appreciate it if anyone can direct me to comparison reviews of
>these printers.

Try these ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/1280.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...pson2200.shtml

At the end of the 2200 review he briefly discusses which printer to buy, the
2200 vs 1280 vs S9000.

>I'm hoping for a little more detail if possible.

Buy a couple of test prints and decide first-hand if still on the fence. From
what you describe I think you'll be fine with the 1280 or Canon S9000, you
don't really need the 2200.

Bill

"PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
news:bgef0j$nfthp$...
Bronzing on glossy paper
> is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
> could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
> bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
>
Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly Premium
Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet ImageShield
Spray. The bronzing disappears.

>

--
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

Bob Hatch wrote:
>
> "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
> news:bgef0j$nfthp$...
> Bronzing on glossy paper
> > is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
> > could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
> > bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
> >
> Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly Premium
> Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet ImageShield
> Spray. The bronzing disappears.
>


What is bronzing?

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:28:20 -0700, "PTRAVEL" <>
wrote:

>My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
>me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
>glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink

Bronzing is way exaggerated in most comments. One, usually you don't
examine photos at an angle (and to see the effect you need quite a
large one). Second, if you don't know of the effect you won't realise
it. Third, the effect isn't as pronounced as sometimes written.

BTW, I remember a time (the 70s) when certain laboratory papers were
used to create such an effect.

--

Dierk

"Abrasha" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bob Hatch wrote:
> >
> > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
> > news:bgef0j$nfthp$...
> > Bronzing on glossy paper
> > > is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the
problem
> > > could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably
isn't a
> > > bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
> > >
> > Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly
Premium
> > Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet
ImageShield
> > Spray. The bronzing disappears.
> >
>
>
> What is bronzing?

Areas with heavy concentrations of ink "glaze over," forming a reflective
patch.


>
> Abrasha
> http://www.abrasha.com