...
I bought a P600 for making digital negatives about a year ago. I like it and have had no trouble with it. One advantage is it has a 60ml capacity vs 25 in the P400.
That could be significant.
Are you using the Epson/OEM inks? The reliability of the third party carts might be a major factor in which printer I go with.
The P600's more generic K3 type ink layout may also be more compatible with the existing profiles I have. In fact, I will thoroughly test the OEM inkset that ships with the printer (I assume). If it can do what I want, it's not out of the question that I'll use the OEM inks. Cost is always a factor, but, quality is #1, with ease, installed base, and lots of other factors also in the mix.
Among other things, I have done my own fade testing (which is well controlled and I trust as much as Wilhelm's). We'll see how the OEM ABW, in addition to QTR, with OEM inks stacks up to my predominately carbon pigment inkset, including the use of the (Canon Lucia EX based) cool toner I use to take the carbon to make neutral image tone. In general, carbon is by far the most lightfast pigment -- in the silver print league in fade, and inkjet prints can be 10x better in terms of the longevity of the paper base. The quality of the color pigments needed to make the carbon warm is where there is a significant difference.
In the OEM 3k pigment inksets, the color inks, even if they are very good, are the weaklings. So, the less the better in my B&W prints. The ABW mode may use as little as possible color, but they probably have to have some running to keep the jets in good shape and keep the image as smooth as possible. All else being equal, an inkset that is aimed at the dominant color printing market is at an inherent disadvantage relative to a dedicated B&W setup. The quality of the total package might be able to overcome that disadvantage, but probably not. I do intend to test the OEM approach.
I'll be curious how the OEM inkset does with Arches Hot Press 140 lb watercolor paper as well. NOTE, I do NOT recommend anyone use Arches with inkjet printers. You have to be very careful to avoid head strikes. Most should definitely stay with inkjet paper. That said, with my 7800, a full sheet of Arches is what I consider my favorite medium. While I do like the option of having a 100% carbon pigment image on as large a piece of Arches that I can feed to the machine, if the printer can feed Arches well, and the OEM MK can hit a dmax of 1.6, that could be very significant. For display, however, I do generally prefer a full sheet -- 22 x 30 -- to a 13" max. width printer. With Arches, its relatively low smoothness due to its lack of an inkjet receptor coating, makes Arches not my favorite paper for desktop printing. I currently have to use two MK positions to print on Arches. That means I must have empty refillable carts and QTR. In that respect, the apparent support of the P600 but not the P400 by QTR may well simply exclude the P400 from consideration.
Having a printer that locks me out of deciding what my image forming medium is going to be, however, is not really compatible with my approach to my art and B&W medium. It's also bad for the long term health of the inkjet market.
I do appreciate any comments that can lead me to be best path forward, not only for my art but for the black and white photographic print medium. I put images on paper for wall display. Whatever gets me the best for the least wins. So far, and for my particular personality and preferences, I see nothing that can touch what I call the "carbon on cotton" photographic print medium. So, while B&W on Arches is too small a market for any printer company to care about, how the printer does with that niche is important for me.
Regards,
Paul