 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2006Advice on inkjet printers
I am now thinking of getting a newer printer than my current Epson Photo 700. The Epson 1290s is not a new model but has good reviews and perhaps cheaper ink costs, plus can do A3, although this is not essential for me. The others that I am looking at are the Epson Photo R800 and the R360 and the R340. Can anyone please advise on their experience with these printers and if the R800 is really a superior printer to the others mentioned? Thanks a lot for any advice. The 1280 is still available because it is still the best ink based printer out there regardless of age. It takes one multicolor and one black cartridge. The R800/1800 use pigment based dyes in individual tiny ink tanks. The gamut of pigment based printers is slightly wider and appears brighter on glossy paper than the ink based printers. They are also not so useful for the occasional text printed on plain paper but can be used this way. I have used both printers and it is difficult to go back to the 1280 after you have seen the color prints that the pigment based printers deliver. Any of these printers is a huge step up from what you have. The ability of these printers to reproduce the colors they are directed to by their drivers is extremely high. As such they are unforgiving of problems with color management such that you might find your results actually seem worse until you learn to use them properly. > The 1280 is still available because it is still the best ink based printer > out there regardless of age. It takes one multicolor and one black [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > management such that you might find your results actually seem worse until > you learn to use them properly. The problem with the later Epsons - which my 790 didn't seem to suffer - is the ink drying up in the heads if the printer is not used regularly. You then need to go through the cleaning process several times before it will print correctly - and that uses lots of ink. I am lucky to get three uses out of a set of carts with a couple of weeks non use between each. Having said that o.e.m. carts are available a Comp Fairs for a tenner or so. Look seriously at the six-colour Canons - the iP range. I have seen some superb results from these, they are fast, and the inks are cheap. Overall though one of the best buys at the moment are the HPs - the 5920(?) gets superb write-ups and is less than sixty notes. You also get the advantage of a new head with a new cartridge, which you don't with Epson or Canon. However HPs are finicky about paper - they don't produce their best unless you use HP paper, whereas Epson and Canon tend to be a bit more tolerant IMO. -- Woody harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com <snip> >Overall though one of the best buys at the moment are the HPs - the >5920(?) gets superb write-ups and is less than sixty notes. You also >get the advantage of a new head with a new cartridge, which you don't >with Epson or Canon. However HPs are finicky about paper - they don't >produce their best unless you use HP paper, whereas Epson and Canon >tend to be a bit more tolerant IMO. I'm using an HP8450 and it produces great results. It also produces great b&w prints as it has a 'grey' cartridge so they are printed with black and two shades of grey rather than lots of CMYK dots being mixed. My only regret is that it doesn't do A3 prints and I'll have to use the Epson at the club for those.  SignatureSurfer! Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net > The problem with the later Epsons - which my 790 didn't seem to > suffer - is the ink drying up in the heads if the printer is not used > regularly. You then need to go through the cleaning process several > times before it will print correctly - and that uses lots of ink. I am > lucky to get three uses out of a set of carts with a couple of weeks > non use between each. My 1290 doesn't suffer from this (so far), it tends to get used in fits and starts. So far, I'm still very pleased with it (I think its coming up to five years old) though Epson had to change it within a very short time of the original purchase (no bother). For (competition) photo printing I use Premium Glossy paper and always the *expensive* :-( Epson ink. Super A3 is great for me, but not everyone needs it. Monochrome prints used to have a slight but visible greenish tinge. This has improved greatly but either it did it itself, or I can't remember what I did. The former, I think! Haven't any experience of other recent printers, so can't compare. Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo Gallery: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111 > Monochrome prints used to have a slight but visible greenish tinge. > This has improved greatly but either it did it itself, or I can't > remember what I did. The former, I think! Greenish tinge can sometimes be a chemical interaction with the paper rather than imperfect black ink hue or unbalanced CMY dithering. Signature______________________________________________________ A fool must now and then be right by chance. ______________________________________________________ In uk.rec.photo.misc bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > The 1280 is still available because it is still the best ink based > printer out there regardless of age. It takes one multicolor and one > black cartridge. The printers all use ink. However, the 1280/1290 uses dye based ink whereas the R800/1800 uses pigment based ink. > The R800/1800 use pigment based dyes in individual tiny ink tanks. > The gamut of pigment based printers is slightly wider and appears > brighter on glossy paper than the ink based printers. It's usually the other way around, although the UltraChrome pigment inks are very good. > They are also not so useful for the occasional text printed on plain > paper but can be used this way. I don't understand this comment. Pigment inks are generally better than dyes on plain paper; they're certainly more water resistant. > I have used both printers and it is difficult to go back to the 1280 > after you have seen the color prints that the pigment based printers > deliver. It's not pigment that's better: as I said, it usually isn't. In this case, however, you're comparing the old Epson QuickDry dye based inks with their newer UltraChrome pigment based inks. It's wrong to extrapolate from the very high quality of UltraChrome to pigment inks in general. > Any of these printers is a huge step up from what you have. The > ability of these printers to reproduce the colors they are directed > to by their drivers is extremely high. As such they are unforgiving > of problems with color management such that you might find your > results actually seem worse until you learn to use them properly. Could well be, yes. Andrew. > In uk.rec.photo.misc bmoag <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The printers all use ink. However, the 1280/1290 uses dye based ink > whereas the R800/1800 uses pigment based ink. ... by the bucket load. I use an R2400 at work and am blown away by the print quality, but the running costs could be a serious issue for amateur use. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.