Digital BW, The Print

On 8/11/02 3:10 PM, "dgabbe2001" <dgabbe@...> wrote:

> This thread started off as what printer should I get.  May be I
> should have communicated my first reply differently so let me
> approach this a bit differently.  While I don't necessarily disagree
> with what Robert said, I think it's not central to the following
> important issues.  They are:
> 
> 1) The which printer should I get question might be better framed
> as some thing along the lines of:  I'm an accomplished silver
> printer and want to shift to quadtone inkjet printing.  I print every
> weekend and make primarily 11x14 prints.  So in a situation like
> this, what is the likely hood the printer will produce satisfactory
> prints is the most important question.

Buy a 1280
 
> 2) I believe that generalizations can be made.  I have examined
> somewhere between 25 - 50 prints from 1160s, 1280s, 7000s,
> and 9000s.  So there are likely 30 - 40 indiviidual printers.  About
> 90% of the prints exhibited very fine, teeny, tiny bands which I can
> see unaided (I have good visual perpection in this regard) in the
> direction of the print head motion.  That says volumes.  And in
> fact this behavior seems independent of the inks since it's
> present in MIS and Cone samples printed w/the Cone
> Piezography driver.  May be you have to print 50 pages before the
> banding stops.  I've been had 3 1160s which have this problem.
> My 1280 has decided to run perfectly.  So if you don't like this
> artifact and you don't print frequently, chances are very high you
> will be unsatisfied.  I don't print w/the Epson driver or ImagePrint
> RIP so I don't know if the artifact is present w/them.

I've seen hundreds and hundreds of prints from about that number of
printers...many people send prints out with banding in them...that's their
decision.  Personally I check prints with an 8x lupe routinely and except no
banding.  The one exception to my rule is printing on luster papers which
are really tough...I will sometimes accept minor 8x banding...but not
visible banding. If I get banding I clean the heads, replace the head,
replace the printer...in that order.  I haven't had to do the latter in very
many cases...but this is why it is good to buy a new or refurbed printer
with an epson warranty...it makes the repair/replace option less painful.  I
have had to retire two out of warranty printers because of frequent
clogging/banding... but this was after thousands of prints and some pretty
rough (testing inks) treatment.  If people take care...you can get prints
without banding from any of these printers.  I think only epson tech service
(or maybe Jon Cone) has a large enough sample to say which printers tend to
band more.
 
> 3) I would like to spend more time making art and less time
> running test prints.  So the important question around droplet
> size differences between the 1280 & 3000, is whether there is
> visible difference in quality between matched prints from these 2
> printers.  So far, I can't see any difference between my 3000 and
> 1280.  Remember that 35mm lens perform quite closely to the
> theortical maximum limits of the lens design.  Modern 4x5 lens
> are nowhere close, but that doesn't stop anyone from shooting
> 4x5 or getting stunning prints.

The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.  This is true
across all (epson driver, piezo driver, imageprint) workflows.

Robert