Epson 3800 Large Format printer formally announced

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Sep 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Hi All,
    >
    > Epson has announced the new 3800 large format printer. Details are at:
    > http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=687


    Seems to be sort of a scaled-down 4800 printer.
    -30 pounds lighter, and a smaller footprint, yet still does 17" wide.
    From the picture, it didn't appear to have the big paper-handling, though
    (large built-in roll feeder, and enclosed/expanding paper tray to handle
    full 17x22" sheets.

    Personally, one of the most attractive things about the 4800/4000 (I have
    the 4000) is it's industrial-strength build, and the built-in large-scale
    paper handling. Without that, it's value diminishes.

    That they limit it to 80ml ink carts is a bit troubling. Perhaps size was
    simply too limiting.
    The 4800 & up can take either 110ml or double that...with 220ml
    arts. -Huge capacity...

    The ability to print on glossy paper is a plus.
    We'll see...

    -Mark²


    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    > Wayne J. Cosshall
    > Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    > Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    > Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    > http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    > Coordindinator of Studies, Multimedia and Photomedia, Australian
    > Academy of Design
    > Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Sep 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark² wrote:

    >
    > Seems to be sort of a scaled-down 4800 printer.
    > -30 pounds lighter, and a smaller footprint, yet still does 17" wide.
    > From the picture, it didn't appear to have the big paper-handling, though
    > (large built-in roll feeder, and enclosed/expanding paper tray to handle
    > full 17x22" sheets.
    >
    > Personally, one of the most attractive things about the 4800/4000 (I have
    > the 4000) is it's industrial-strength build, and the built-in large-scale
    > paper handling. Without that, it's value diminishes.
    >
    > That they limit it to 80ml ink carts is a bit troubling. Perhaps size was
    > simply too limiting.
    > The 4800 & up can take either 110ml or double that...with 220ml
    > arts. -Huge capacity...
    >
    > The ability to print on glossy paper is a plus.
    > We'll see...
    >
    > -Mark²
    >
    >

    Trying to hit a new price point to open up new markets in the face of
    stronger competition from HP and Canon, I would guess. Always a place
    for more choice.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Sep 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    > Trying to hit a new price point to open up new markets in the face of
    > stronger competition from HP and Canon, I would guess. Always a place
    > for more choice.


    Why don't any of these things offer continuous inking systems? It
    would be such a huge competitive attraction (at least if the
    manufacturer is really trying to sell printers, rather than use them
    as a giveaway vehicle to help them sell ink) that it almost seems like
    a conspiracy that they've all refrained.
    Paul Rubin, Sep 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    >> Trying to hit a new price point to open up new markets in the face of
    >> stronger competition from HP and Canon, I would guess. Always a place
    >> for more choice.

    >
    > Why don't any of these things offer continuous inking systems? It
    > would be such a huge competitive attraction (at least if the
    > manufacturer is really trying to sell printers, rather than use them
    > as a giveaway vehicle to help them sell ink) that it almost seems like
    > a conspiracy that they've all refrained.


    The others nearly are continuous ink systems...with their 220ml carts.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Sep 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
    > The others nearly are continuous ink systems...with their 220ml carts.


    Hmm, well I thought the idea of continuous ink is that you can use
    bulk ink without the manufacturer shaking fingers at you. Don't they
    charge a fortune for those carts? It looks like an 220ml Epson cart
    is around $85 discounted, or $386/liter, vs. about $25/liter for
    gallon bottles from refill places.
    Paul Rubin, Sep 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    >> Trying to hit a new price point to open up new markets in the face of
    >> stronger competition from HP and Canon, I would guess. Always a place
    >> for more choice.

    >
    > Why don't any of these things offer continuous inking systems? It
    > would be such a huge competitive attraction (at least if the
    > manufacturer is really trying to sell printers, rather than use them
    > as a giveaway vehicle to help them sell ink) that it almost seems like
    > a conspiracy that they've all refrained.


    I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they sell printers to
    sell ink. Not long ago there was a Lexmark that cost more to refill
    than to buy including new ink.


    --
    Ben
    Lyric of the week: "This the eighties and I'm down with the ladies"
    Ben Thomas, Sep 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Ben Thomas <> writes:
    > I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they sell printers to
    > sell ink. Not long ago there was a Lexmark that cost more to refill
    > than to buy including new ink.


    That's some throwaway consumer printer, not a large format printer
    some of which go into five figure price tags.
    Paul Rubin, Sep 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> writes:
    >> Trying to hit a new price point to open up new markets in the face of
    >> stronger competition from HP and Canon, I would guess. Always a place
    >> for more choice.

    >
    > Why don't any of these things offer continuous inking systems? It
    > would be such a huge competitive attraction (at least if the
    > manufacturer is really trying to sell printers, rather than use them
    > as a giveaway vehicle to help them sell ink) that it almost seems like
    > a conspiracy that they've all refrained.


    HP's last results:
    $90 billion turnover
    $4.5 billion profit from selling ink and toner
    $1 billion profit from selling everything else
    frederick, Sep 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > Ben Thomas <> writes:
    >> I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they sell printers to
    >> sell ink. Not long ago there was a Lexmark that cost more to refill
    >> than to buy including new ink.

    >
    > That's some throwaway consumer printer,


    Literally.

    > not a large format printer
    > some of which go into five figure price tags.


    According to the sales figures in another post in this thread, the point
    I was trying to illustrate is valid.


    --
    Ben
    Lyric of the week: "This the eighties and I'm down with the ladies"
    Ben Thomas, Sep 26, 2006
    #10
  11. frederick wrote:
    >
    > HP's last results:
    > $90 billion turnover
    > $4.5 billion profit from selling ink and toner
    > $1 billion profit from selling everything else


    I think it is very clear that the manufacturers view ink and paper sales
    as part of the profit source from printers. In principle I don't think
    it is unreasonable. Where it does become unreasonable is where the
    profit level is excessive, which I think is what many people are saying
    about all the manufacturers. I actually don't think HP is the worse in
    this, just, being a public company, their figures are accessible.

    I have argued for a long time for three things: bulk ink system printers
    from the manufacturers, cheaper large format for the very price
    sensitive segments and more flexible media options (ie adjustable height
    paper paths to take very thick materials, like aluminum sheet, straight
    paper paths for rigit media and no pinch rollers on the outside of the
    print heads to allow for media that is still wet when it comes out of
    the printer). I actually feel I am getting somewhere with these
    arguments, at least with one manufacturer, but we have to wait and see.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Sep 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > frederick wrote:
    >>
    >> HP's last results:
    >> $90 billion turnover
    >> $4.5 billion profit from selling ink and toner
    >> $1 billion profit from selling everything else

    >
    > I think it is very clear that the manufacturers view ink and paper sales
    > as part of the profit source from printers. In principle I don't think
    > it is unreasonable. Where it does become unreasonable is where the
    > profit level is excessive, which I think is what many people are saying
    > about all the manufacturers. I actually don't think HP is the worse in
    > this, just, being a public company, their figures are accessible.
    >

    "Excessive" is rather subjective.
    As for HP, I believe that their newer printers have raised the level of
    cost for ink on a $ per ml level to new extremes:
    HP B9180 - 27 ml @ $33.00 = $1.22 per ml.
    HP claimed photo yield is 80 A3+ pages per 8 cartridge combined - (they
    get used at different rates - so that is what you are claimed to get
    from 216ml / $264 of ink = $3.30 of ink per page!).
    Epson prices suck - their A3 printer ink runs at about $1.00 per ml in
    the US. What sucks more is clear differential pricing and chipped
    cartridges. Cartridge prices for the same cartridge for an R2400
    printer are about:
    $9 in Japan
    $13 in US
    $18 in Europe
    And guess what happens if you put a cartridge bought in Japan in to a
    printer sold in the US? The same pattern of pricing applies for 110 and
    220ml ink cartridges for their wide format machines
    HP do the same - use region code chipping to maintain differential
    pricing. Governments don't care - antitrust regulation is out of favor
    politically. The market is supposed to sort itself out through
    competition - yeah sure...

    >
    > I have argued for a long time for three things: bulk ink system printers
    > from the manufacturers, cheaper large format for the very price
    > sensitive segments and more flexible media options (ie adjustable height
    > paper paths to take very thick materials, like aluminum sheet, straight
    > paper paths for rigit media and no pinch rollers on the outside of the
    > print heads to allow for media that is still wet when it comes out of
    > the printer). I actually feel I am getting somewhere with these
    > arguments, at least with one manufacturer, but we have to wait and see.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    frederick, Sep 27, 2006
    #12
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >> frederick wrote:
    >>>
    >>> HP's last results:
    >>> $90 billion turnover
    >>> $4.5 billion profit from selling ink and toner
    >>> $1 billion profit from selling everything else

    >>
    >> I think it is very clear that the manufacturers view ink and paper
    >> sales as part of the profit source from printers. In principle I
    >> don't think it is unreasonable. Where it does become unreasonable is
    >> where the profit level is excessive, which I think is what many
    >> people are saying about all the manufacturers. I actually don't
    >> think HP is the worse in this, just, being a public company, their
    >> figures are accessible.

    > "Excessive" is rather subjective.
    > As for HP, I believe that their newer printers have raised the level
    > of cost for ink on a $ per ml level to new extremes:
    > HP B9180 - 27 ml @ $33.00 = $1.22 per ml.
    > HP claimed photo yield is 80 A3+ pages per 8 cartridge combined -
    > (they get used at different rates - so that is what you are claimed
    > to get from 216ml / $264 of ink = $3.30 of ink per page!).
    > Epson prices suck - their A3 printer ink runs at about $1.00 per ml in
    > the US.


    Not on their large format printers...
    The 110ml carts are about $50, and their 220ml carts are about $83.
    That's only 45 cents and 37.5 cents per ml. respectively.

    This is why I've said for a long time that MORE folks should seriously
    consider the 4000/4800 printer!
    Ya, you pay about $1750, but it comes WITH a whopping 880ml of ink! -Not
    only that, but you get industrial-build in the printer itself. More than a
    bargain compared to what you'll endlessly shell out in ink for lesser
    printers.

    Mark²

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Sep 27, 2006
    #13
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > frederick wrote:
    >> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>> frederick wrote:
    >>>> HP's last results:
    >>>> $90 billion turnover
    >>>> $4.5 billion profit from selling ink and toner
    >>>> $1 billion profit from selling everything else
    >>> I think it is very clear that the manufacturers view ink and paper
    >>> sales as part of the profit source from printers. In principle I
    >>> don't think it is unreasonable. Where it does become unreasonable is
    >>> where the profit level is excessive, which I think is what many
    >>> people are saying about all the manufacturers. I actually don't
    >>> think HP is the worse in this, just, being a public company, their
    >>> figures are accessible.

    >> "Excessive" is rather subjective.
    >> As for HP, I believe that their newer printers have raised the level
    >> of cost for ink on a $ per ml level to new extremes:
    >> HP B9180 - 27 ml @ $33.00 = $1.22 per ml.
    >> HP claimed photo yield is 80 A3+ pages per 8 cartridge combined -
    >> (they get used at different rates - so that is what you are claimed
    >> to get from 216ml / $264 of ink = $3.30 of ink per page!).
    >> Epson prices suck - their A3 printer ink runs at about $1.00 per ml in
    >> the US.

    >
    > Not on their large format printers...
    > The 110ml carts are about $50, and their 220ml carts are about $83.
    > That's only 45 cents and 37.5 cents per ml. respectively.
    >
    > This is why I've said for a long time that MORE folks should seriously
    > consider the 4000/4800 printer!
    > Ya, you pay about $1750, but it comes WITH a whopping 880ml of ink! -Not
    > only that, but you get industrial-build in the printer itself. More than a
    > bargain compared to what you'll endlessly shell out in ink for lesser
    > printers.
    >
    > Mark²
    >

    $50 seems a very good price for 110ml - >$60 is more normal.
    (then again I've been told that the 220 ml carts can be bought for as
    little as $40 in Japan)

    The 4800 printer wastes $40 worth of ink every time you change from
    photo to matte black. Not so bad if you don't do the changes so
    frequently. It also won't handle media smaller than 10x8.

    The 3800 is better in that it will handle small media and all 9 inks are
    loaded simultaneously - although the matte/photo black head is shared it
    wastes only a few ml in changes. But the 80 ml K3 carts of course cost
    more per ml than the 100 or 220ml k3 carts.
    However, the 3800 makes good sense compared to an Epson R2400. The cost
    of the 3800 ($1300 with 9 x 80ml tanks) is less than the cost of an
    R2400 plus about 4 or 5 full sets of replacement cartridges that would
    give about the same yield.
    Just to confound what seemed to be a great deal, there 3800 doesn't have
    a roll feed slot/roll holder...
    frederick, Sep 27, 2006
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> frederick wrote:
    >>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>>> frederick wrote:
    >>>>> HP's last results:
    >>>>> $90 billion turnover
    >>>>> $4.5 billion profit from selling ink and toner
    >>>>> $1 billion profit from selling everything else
    >>>> I think it is very clear that the manufacturers view ink and paper
    >>>> sales as part of the profit source from printers. In principle I
    >>>> don't think it is unreasonable. Where it does become unreasonable
    >>>> is where the profit level is excessive, which I think is what many
    >>>> people are saying about all the manufacturers. I actually don't
    >>>> think HP is the worse in this, just, being a public company, their
    >>>> figures are accessible.
    >>> "Excessive" is rather subjective.
    >>> As for HP, I believe that their newer printers have raised the level
    >>> of cost for ink on a $ per ml level to new extremes:
    >>> HP B9180 - 27 ml @ $33.00 = $1.22 per ml.
    >>> HP claimed photo yield is 80 A3+ pages per 8 cartridge combined -
    >>> (they get used at different rates - so that is what you are claimed
    >>> to get from 216ml / $264 of ink = $3.30 of ink per page!).
    >>> Epson prices suck - their A3 printer ink runs at about $1.00 per ml
    >>> in the US.

    >>
    >> Not on their large format printers...
    >> The 110ml carts are about $50, and their 220ml carts are about $83.
    >> That's only 45 cents and 37.5 cents per ml. respectively.
    >>
    >> This is why I've said for a long time that MORE folks should
    >> seriously consider the 4000/4800 printer!
    >> Ya, you pay about $1750, but it comes WITH a whopping 880ml of ink! -Not
    >> only that, but you get industrial-build in the printer itself. More than
    >> a bargain compared to what you'll endlessly shell out in
    >> ink for lesser printers.
    >>
    >> Mark²
    >>

    > $50 seems a very good price for 110ml - >$60 is more normal.
    > (then again I've been told that the 220 ml carts can be bought for as
    > little as $40 in Japan)
    >
    > The 4800 printer wastes $40 worth of ink every time you change from
    > photo to matte black.


    -Which is why I'm happy to stay with my 4000...which has no such waste.
    But you can still get around that on the 4800 by using "Phat Black" and the
    accompanying RIP, which is extremely effective at fooling around with the
    ink usage and allowing both types without the change.
    I've seen results of this and it works!

    What I DON'T like on my 4000 is the difficulty with B&W prints. The 4800's
    K3 ink set is much better for this.

    >Not so bad if you don't do the changes so
    > frequently. It also won't handle media smaller than 10x8.


    Sure it can! Just use roll media. I've got a roll of 6" that I use in my
    4000 when I want to slam through some 4x6 full-bleed quickies in a hurry.

    > The 3800 is better in that it will handle small media and all 9 inks
    > are loaded simultaneously - although the matte/photo black head is
    > shared it wastes only a few ml in changes.


    That's an advantage. I agree.

    >But the 80 ml K3 carts of
    > course cost more per ml than the 100 or 220ml k3 carts.
    > However, the 3800 makes good sense compared to an Epson R2400. The
    > cost of the 3800 ($1300 with 9 x 80ml tanks) is less than the cost of
    > an R2400 plus about 4 or 5 full sets of replacement cartridges that
    > would give about the same yield.


    Good point.

    > Just to confound what seemed to be a great deal, there 3800 doesn't
    > have a roll feed slot/roll holder...


    That's why I'd rather pay another $400 and get a 4000/4800. Everything you
    need is there...with HUGE build quality. I've been tempted toward a 2400
    just for black & white, since I've been working on reproducing large
    quantities of old B&W prints...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Sep 27, 2006
    #15
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    Mark² wrote:

    > That's why I'd rather pay another $400 and get a 4000/4800. Everything you
    > need is there...with HUGE build quality. I've been tempted toward a 2400
    > just for black & white, since I've been working on reproducing large
    > quantities of old B&W prints...
    >


    I'd be inclined to wait on the 2400 to see what happens. The R1800 is
    at least $200 less than the 2400, yet they are the same printer with
    only a different external case and modifications for paper path vs CD
    tray - all the expensive bits (heads/carriage assembly) are the same. (I
    have the tech manuals here). The rest is just firmware/drivers for the
    different ink set. Epson can easily reduce the 2400 price - and probably
    will now that they have the 3800, especially now that there is the HP
    B9180 taking sales from them at the $700 mark. Alternately, although
    for sure the 3800 won't be as solidly built as the 4800, it might be
    able to be used for panorama/roll printing once people have had it long
    enough to figure out how. I have an R1800 - and if it didn't have the
    rear roll feed slot it does (the 3800 apparently doesn't), then although
    it might be a big pain in the neck to feed roll paper in to the main
    rear paper feeder, a bit of user modification shouldn't be too hard. If
    the driver precludes roll paper, then there's always Qimage.
    frederick, Sep 27, 2006
    #16
  17. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mark² Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >
    >> That's why I'd rather pay another $400 and get a 4000/4800. Everything
    >> you need is there...with HUGE build quality. I've been
    >> tempted toward a 2400 just for black & white, since I've been
    >> working on reproducing large quantities of old B&W prints...
    >>

    >
    > I'd be inclined to wait on the 2400 to see what happens. The R1800 is
    > at least $200 less than the 2400, yet they are the same printer with
    > only a different external case and modifications for paper path vs CD
    > tray - all the expensive bits (heads/carriage assembly) are the same.
    > (I have the tech manuals here). The rest is just firmware/drivers
    > for the different ink set. Epson can easily reduce the 2400 price -
    > and probably will now that they have the 3800, especially now that
    > there is the HP B9180 taking sales from them at the $700 mark.
    > Alternately, although for sure the 3800 won't be as solidly built as
    > the 4800, it might be able to be used for panorama/roll printing once
    > people have had it long enough to figure out how. I have an R1800 -
    > and if it didn't have the rear roll feed slot it does (the 3800
    > apparently doesn't), then although it might be a big pain in the neck
    > to feed roll paper in to the main rear paper feeder, a bit of user
    > modification shouldn't be too hard. If the driver precludes roll
    > paper, then there's always Qimage.


    I'm quite satisfied with my 4000 for color work, and already produce
    panoramas at about 17"x45" or so, along with countless other color prints.
    I just sent over 100 prints to friends I met recently in Ukraine. I have
    nothing but praise for this printer...EXCEPT...B&W.
    The only reason I consider a K3 ink-based printer is for this purpose alone
    (neutral-greys in B&W).
    At some point, I may look for a 2400, or other K3 system, but it bugs the
    heck out of me to pay for tiny little ink carts. I like the huge 110ml and
    220ml carts Epson's wide format printers use, and will have a hard time
    going back to the little ones. The price of little cartridges mean the
    less-expensive printers catch up rather quickly to the professional line
    once you start doing a lot of prints...

    But anyway... I'm in no hurry, since my old black & white family print
    project isn't going to go anywhere soon.
    :)
    I agree about waiting a bit.
    -Mark²

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Sep 27, 2006
    #17
  18. When I was in Barcelona with the HP engineers they made quite a point of
    just how much ink many other printers waste. They claimed to have paid a
    lot of attention to this. I'll know more personally when I see the
    printers in day to day use.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Sep 27, 2006
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    measekite Guest

    You gotta be crazy to use no name relabeled generic ink in a printer
    that costs like this. If you do not pay then do not play.

    Paul Rubin wrote:

    >"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
    >
    >
    >>The others nearly are continuous ink systems...with their 220ml carts.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Hmm, well I thought the idea of continuous ink is that you can use
    >bulk ink without the manufacturer shaking fingers at you. Don't they
    >charge a fortune for those carts? It looks like an 220ml Epson cart
    >is around $85 discounted, or $386/liter, vs. about $25/liter for
    >gallon bottles from refill places.
    >
    >
    measekite, Sep 27, 2006
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Rubin Guest

    measekite <> writes:
    > You gotta be crazy to use no name relabeled generic ink in a printer
    > that costs like this. If you do not pay then do not play.


    And the difference between generic ink and 15x as expensive Epson
    ink is exactly what? This is ink we're talking about, not a cancer drug.
    Paul Rubin, Sep 27, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. HRosita

    New Epson 4000 printer Announced

    HRosita, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    381
    Rafe B.
    Oct 22, 2003
  2. B&B Musmon

    Epson Photo 2200 large format prints

    B&B Musmon, Mar 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    326
    Fred A. Miller
    Mar 7, 2004
  3. Eric Peterson

    large format printer recommendations: epson vs hp

    Eric Peterson, Sep 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    303
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Epson 3800 and HP Z3100 printer reviews

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    1,215
    Dave Sill
    Jan 22, 2007
  5. David

    Epson 3800 vs 4800 Printer

    David, Mar 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    3,241
Loading...

Share This Page