Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PTRAVEL, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. PTRAVEL

    PTRAVEL Guest

    Having had a successful sell-off of a garage full of gadgets, I've just
    bought a Canon 10d. I have almost enough money left over to consider the
    purchase of a wide printer, so I think I'm going to put my color darkroom up
    for auction and make the conversion to digital-only.

    I routinely print 16 x 20 color in my darkroom, so I'd like a printer that
    can approach that size. The Epson 2200 can handle 13 x 19, which is close
    enough for me.

    This printer seems to be well-regarded. How does it compare to the other
    wide printers?

    Thanks in advance for your opinions.
     
    PTRAVEL, Jul 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PTRAVEL

    chaz Guest

    i own one and i have never regretted buying it, but now my home made prints
    are better than my "pro lab" prints, but not quite fast enough .... yet!

    fyi

    i wouldnt bother with any profiles colourbalancing, grey balancer software
    until you have done some prints first, mine look fine and match the screen
    without twiddling!

    chas
     
    chaz, Jul 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PTRAVEL

    Lisa Duskis Guest

    I've got the Epson 1280, the model down from that. the inks are dye based,
    rather than pigment based.

    A friend of mine has a 2200 and a 1270, and said the only time she uses the
    2200 is for black and white images because the colors on the 1270 are alot
    nicer when printing color.

    I'm happy with my 1280. Colors are beautiful, I've not had to calibrate or
    anything :)

    And its about, oh $200 cheaper, and there is also a $100 rebate till the end
    of august.

    -- Lisa
     
    Lisa Duskis, Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. PTRAVEL

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "PTRAVEL"
    I have a 1280 and a 2200 and the 2200 is a much better printer for me because I
    need the longer print life (the 2200 is far superior for this) and because I
    like to print on different papers and Epson has 6 excellent papers with full
    ICM support for the 2200. The print quality is pretty much a wash, both are
    excellent.

    The 1280 is better for a couple of things, it's cheaper and the prints on
    Premium Glossy Photo Paper (PGPP) look better than 2200 prints on the same
    paper because of "bronzing" or "black ink differential" on the 2200, but the
    semi-gloss paper for the 2200 is so good I don't miss this.

    My advice is get the 2200 ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
  5. PTRAVEL

    Flycaster Guest

    [snip]
    It deosn't much matter what the *manufacturers* say, rather the independent
    labs say, such as Wilhelm. All manufacturers stretch the truth, sometimes
    badly, especially with the so-called "permanent" papers. If you think any
    dye based ink will actually last 25 years under normal "home" type lighting,
    you're simply buying into their BS.

    According to Wilhelm, with respect to visible fade/color shift, 10-15 years
    for a C print is about average, ditto with any standard dye-based inkjet
    using "permanent" paper, and 40-60 years for a hybrid/pigmented using
    archival, acid free rag. This last number, incidentally, is the same as the
    projected longevity for Cibachromes and Fuji Crystal Archive prints.

    Regardless, don't buy the numbers that manufacturers throw out without
    reading the fine print where they place all the test limitations ~ their
    control environment would more likely match the average cellar closet than
    it would the average living room.
     
    Flycaster, Aug 1, 2003
    #5
  6. PTRAVEL

    Dierk Haasis Guest

    After having read some reviews (like the one on www.photo-i.co.uk) and
    having seen photo prints from it on various papers (Epson's,
    Tetenal's, Römerturm's, ranging from High-gloss through Semi to Matte)
    I'd recommend the Epson 2200 (2100 in Europe). Mine will be here in a
    few weeks.

    The so-called bronzing is not that big as some people claim, and only
    when you look at the photo at an angle you usually don't look at
    pictures will you see it. The same effect could be seen years ago on
    certain photo papers used in the laboratory, it was even sought after.
     
    Dierk Haasis, Aug 1, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.