Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 10/15/2004 10:13:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> lost my taste for the epson driver along time ago, fourtunately I only use 
> wide format machines now. People think this is too expensive? buts its 
> really 
> a money saver and easier in so many ways.
> Steve M.
> 

David and Steve in particular

I too share your frustation/disdain for the subtle variabilities of many the 
"throwaway" plasic printers. On the other hand I'm constantly amazed that they 
can create such technological marvels and sell them so cheap by merely 
chargin $5,000 per gallon of "usable" ink from thos little cartrideges. (packaging, 
packaging, packaging).

My 9500, 7500, 7600, 3000, 5500, 5000, and 4000 have all proven this in 
various forms of color/quad/matte/glossy applications with various 
coatings/lamintations. I have owned or tested just about every significat Epson printer ever 
made since 1994's original Stylus. Guess which ones I'm now seeking, keeping 
and using to earn a living or print family snaps?

Epson's head life rating and CONSITENCY over the life of the heads is triple 
for the Pro DX-3 units vs. the consumer printers. I have always felt that it 
was fundamentally wrong to squirt pigments out of consumer level printheads 
when they were designed for dyes. Paul Roark's recent work with the 2000P bears 
this out when working with simplified monotone inks, since the printer was 
designed for PIGMENTS and cost twice as much as it's dye brethrens.

Wouldn't we think that, in the absence of close-out periods, that a printer 
that costs twice as much would have better mechanics and electronics inside? 
It's my electronics/design/manufacturing background talking, but given a certain 
profit margin dictated by the bean counters that run companies, engineers can 
make a better product with more money to work with. You simply get what you 
pay for.

As a parallel point, was it really that much more money to get a 
vibration-free., motorized 4x5 Beseler enlarger than a plastic cheapie lens wiggler for 
the serious B&W darkroom worker?

Like Paul Roark says, for matte papers, isn't a used 7500 printer that can be 
purchased for about $700 on Ebay cheaper in the long run than goofing around 
with the cheapies with their sloppier manufacturing tolerances?

That being said, the exception might be the R800, but that's color.

Given that Epson "abandons" old models at an alarming pace to keep up with 
Moore's law and market demands, we B&W guys, who are inherently "mavericks" by 
putting experimental foreign inks in older Epsons, benefit from "cheap" 
leftovers. This is borne out when you can buy used Pro level machines on Ebay for 10 
cents on the dollar from just 3 years ago.

On the other topic: "It's easy if you work hard, but hard if you work easy" 
and the "seriousness" of the activity is directly proportional to the dollars 
and time spent.

Claude Jodoin
Tech. Editor 
Rangefinder


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]