Digital BW, The Print

Hi Bernie;

Like Paul I too got into wide format with a used 7500, which I'm 
using with the original UT-1 inks and getting quite good prints 
from. However, if you think the 4000 is too big and bulky, you won't 
like the 7500 either. I also have a factory refurbed 760 I paid 
$2000 for with full one -year warranty.
 I am intrigued by, and did some research on, some of the new 
printers, the DJ-130 being one of them. A lot more compact, though 
the price business is misleading: if you buy the version with the 
roll-paper feeder it comes up to the price of a 4000. And I seem to 
remember that the roll feeder was only 17 inches wide? Not sure 
about that detail, though. In terms of space occupied: The full-size 
sheet feed slot is at the back, and almost horizontal, which means 
you can't put the printer against a wall and use large sheets. So if 
you need to use it that way, it will tie up much more space than a 
vertical feed machine. 
One thing that bothers me about the HP is that they don't seem to 
publish ink-droplet sizes. Being in the position of needing to do 
digital internegs for the forseeable future, and also being 
interested in a grain free two K ink (MK +LK)gray-scale solution, a 
very small droplet size such as the the R1800 has is very attractive 
to me, though it may not be an issue for most printers.

I haven't done as much research into the 24" Canon, but I understand 
it uses pigment inks, which at least allows use of third party pigs 
and papers, and will most likely get it some 3rd party support. How 
much is anyone's guess, but I doubt that QTR will support it in the 
next year, though Bowhouse might have the resources to do so. We'll 
see I guess.


Steve Karafyllakis 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bernie Ess" 
<albatros-@g...> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> Using a 2200/UT7 right now, I nevertheless want to get a wide 
format
> printer during this year. As I am not a professional photographer I
> have to look at the prices seriously and I must say that a new 
7600 is
> almost too much for my budget - as there is so much more expensive
> stuff in photography that needs/ wants to be bought all the time.
> 
> Now the options Epson give me right now are the 4000 and the 7600.
> Given the fact that since several years Epson dominated the market 
for
> serious prints of archival photographic prints, I feel that the 
prices
> are higher than they should be and - BTW - I also feel that the 
4000
> is a much too big and heavy machine for the A2 format. There 
should be
> a printer exactly like the 2100, just wider. 
> 
> But am I wrong feeling that times start to change for Epson? 
> 1. HPs relatively new DJ 130/ DJ 90 (summer 2005) line of printers
> with agressive pricing and try&buy policies.
> 
> 2. Canon comes out - finally - with wide format printers: 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pie-show.shtml
> Interesting enough, Canon seems to offer the photorag roll paper 
for
> their printers, which suggests that this combination is at least
> working - something which seems more unclear for the DJ130 line.
> 
> Both brands have lower prices than Epson - and finally start to 
offer
> solutions that can be called archival. I also welcome that the DJs 
are
> much smaller that a Epson 4000 or 7600. 
> 
> Of course there are many issues to be thought of. For Epson a wide
> aftermarket has established: Black/ grey inks with CIS systems,
> shareware or very affordable RIPs (QTR/ Bowhaus) that make neutral 
BW
> available.
> 
> Also, the Epson inks somehow still inspire more trust in terms of 
archival
> qualities than the dye inks of HP and Epson. 
> 
> So what I think is that the situation just *starts* to change - it
> will take some time before serious print makers will be able to 
trust
> in the HP/ Canon solutions. But those companies seem not be 
willing to
> leave the market over to Epson alone.
> 
> Which can only be good for us, the printer people.
> 
> What are your thoughts?
> 
> regards, Bernie