Digital BW, The Print

Terry,

That exactly answers my questions. I was wondering if the extra $400 
for the 2000P resulted in any quantifiable image improvements.

The lack of a linear pattern or corduroy banding in comparison to the 
1280 would indicate a better transport or transport control. Of 
course it is a bit hard to know for sure since we see so much printer-
to-printer variation within the same model number. There is always 
the possibility that we wind up comparing an exceptionally good 
example of model "A" to a not so good example of model "B".

In looking at the last print exchange under magnification it is 
interesting to note that there are no linear patterns in the images 
printed on the 2000P's, 7000's and 3000's. Most of the desktop 
printers show some linear pattern. I stress that this is only visible 
under magnification. At normal viewing distances I see no linear 
patterns.

This suggests that a larger ink droplet may be better than a smaller 
on in terms of the linear artifacts. Better transports and control 
are a plus as well.

I would be tempted by the 2000P for use with Piezo if it was offered. 
It has seemed strange to me that ConeTech has not offered support for 
any of the printers Epson designed to work with pigment inks.

Thanks for all the info!

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Since I have both, I will take a stab at it here.
> 
> My honest feeling is that the 1280 is the "dye" version of the 
2000P 
> from a mechanical standpoint.
> 
> The 2000P does appear to have better software to control the paper 
> and head transport though. You can actually change a printer 
> cartridge that reads dead empty in the middle of a print and never 
be 
> able to detect where the change took place. Also the paper 
> registration repeats dead on. At 1440 the 2000P will print with the 
> same speed as the 1280 at 2880 (read that as slooooow), but thay 
may 
> be a good thing with pigmented inks. It also cleans the heads more 
> often than the 1280.
> 
> When you consider the 2000P has 7 picoliter heads and the 1280 has 
4, 
> it is amazing just how smooth the 2000P is in comparing prints. Yes 
> you can look at them under a loupe and the 1280 will look better 
> (esp. at 2880), but at a standard viewing distance the 2000P looks 
> more like a "traditional" photo to me. This printer did 
exceptionally 
> well with the VM inks, no printer induced "artifacting" that I 
could 
> detect - banding, etc...
> 
> The cut and paste quote below is from Ian Lyons Computer Darkroom 
> site.
> 
> ******************************************************************
> 
> Here's a commentary on the real world performance of the Photo 
2000P 
> from someone who actually owns one, i.e.; Carol Steele at Adobe's 
> Photoshop User-to-User forum. Carol is an Award Winning 
Professional 
> Photographer, and is well respected by ALL those who participate on 
> that forum.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Epson Semi Gloss paper
> On normal visual inspection, the print appears very similar to the 
> print which you supplied done on Epson Glossy paper. Close 
inspection 
> with a fairly high powered lens showed the dot pattern from the 
Epson 
> 2000 print to be slightly more defined than the 1270 print - 
however 
> I could see print lines in the 1270 print which were completely 
> absent in the 2000 print. Please bear in mind that the magnifying 
> lens which I used is also capable of resolving the fine fines which 
> make up prints from the Kodak LED20 printer (the Pegasus printer in 
> the US).
> 
> Epson Archival Matte paper
> Again visual inspection put these two prints neck and neck from a 
> normal visual inspection. However, because of the grain pattern of 
> the paper a very detailed examination with my lens, I couldn't 
really 
> detect a dot pattern in the 2000 print - but in the matte print 
which 
> you supplied, although there was no noticeable dot pattern, I could 
> resolve the lines of the print.
> 
> Lysonic Smooth Fine Art Watercolour paper
> Again because of the grain structure of this type of paper, I could 
> detect no dot pattern from the print.
> 
> Conclusions
> On the whole the printers are very similar and you would not be 
able 
> to tell the difference from a normal visual/close visual 
inspection. 
> Differences only start to appear when examined closely with a high 
> powered magnifying lens - and these are only really apparent on the 
> glossy type papers. 
> 
> Obviously there are pros and cons for each printer, the 1270 is 
much, 
> much faster - so if speed is an issue and quick output is required, 
> then the 1270 is the printer of choice. On the other hand, if 
> archival permanence is more important than print speed then the 
2000P 
> is the printer to go for.
> 
> Carol 
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 
> I also have been able to feed the 425gsm Smooth and Textured Epson 
> Fine Art Paper (cut down from 24X30 sheets with no trouble - 
haven't 
> tried this on the 1280 yet).
> 
> While mechanically as I said they appear to be identical, the 
> software makes the 2000P seem to "work" slightly better. The thing 
> that interested me from the above quote is the ability to see the 
> print lines in a 1270, but not in a 2000P. To me this indicates 
> better head and paper transport. Although Jon most likely won't 
> release Piezo for the 2000P, this would probably be the best 
printer 
> for use with Piezo ie. no banding, etc...
> 
> Don't know if any of this helps. 
> 
> Terry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Is there any difference between the 1280 and 2000P in terms of 
> paper 
> > transport and head mechanics? Is the 2000P a better printer 
> > mechanically or is it just a difference in the nozzles and 
> > electronics?
> > 
> > Martin Wesley