Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> wrote:
>
> Having spent the last six months using a 2400, I received a 4800 
> yesterday and have it set up, just now, with some QTR ICC profiles 
> for VFA, EEM and HPR.  Since so many are using one or the other of 
> these printers, I thought I'd give my impressions of the comparison.
> 
> 1.  The 4800 seems like a huge leap in apparent technology over the 
> 2400 and at $1,400 (that rebate last month) it seems like a steal.
> 2.  The driver in the 4800 is more awkward (Windows):  type of 
feed, 
> orientation, etc. are not savable in a workflow.  This seems odd 
and 
> irritating.  The feed route (top manual, tray, etc.) must be 
selected 
> before anything else or certain papers and ABW are unavailable. (Am 
I 
> wrong on this?)  
> 3.  The top manual feed slot is very fussy and difficult to use,  
> rejecting paper because it was not inserted "deeply" or it is 
> crooked.  The alternative, the front manual slot, requires a good 
15 
> inches behind the printer and I don't have the space for that.  
Even 
> this loading is hardly the height of convenience.  The EEM tray 
> loading (holds about 75 sheets I think) is a delight.
> 4.  The size of the ink carts in the 4800 is a huge relief.  They 
are 
> three quarters the size of a VHS tape.  I had been stocking 30-40 
> carts for the 2400 and changing them *constantly*.
> 5.  Surprisingly, the 4800 seems a bit slower in cranking out a 
print 
> (2880, unidirectional).
> 6.  The 4800 has linearized and separated the shadows on HPR, which 
> was a problem with the 2400, which showed shadow reversals.  The 
new 
> values for 90-100% blacks are (followed in parentheses by the 2400 
> figures: 24.52 (21.56); 21.67 (19.63); 20.10 (18.39); 18.94 
(17.77); 
> 17.57 (17.79); 16.53 (17.77).  So this is a much better performance 
> from the 4800.  (Unfortunateloy the dmax at 16.53 is still pretty 
> poor.)
> 7.  The corresponding VFA figures are good too:  26.13 (24.67); 
23.05 
> (22.72); 21.08 (20.68); 18.81 (18.63); 16.36 (16.66); 14.15 
(14.19).  
> The separation here is, I think, really visible in the prints (as 
it 
> is with the HPR).  What do people think of a 90% black coming in at 
> L* 26.13?  The unmanaged scale from top to bottom is quite linear, 
> with fewer little irregularities than on the 2400 and a straighter 
> curve.
> 8.  I had expected the visible output of the two printers to be 
> identical, but they are not.  The differences are slight, but there 
> is a tonal smoothness and lack of "grain" in the 4800 images (as 
well 
> as those lucid shadows) that is immediately apparent side-by-side.  
I 
> wouldn't get a 4800 for this reason (I got it for ink costs 
mostly), 
> but it's nice to have and it is an improvement.  The 4800 appears 
to 
> have *much* more sophisticated head alignment routines and it is 
also 
> holding the paper flat with suction.
> 
> So those are my observations and questions so far.  And once again, 
> thank you Roy for those profiles!
> 
> Walt
>
Walt,

I've had the same problem with the top-load slot on my 4800 rejecting 
paper due to it being crooked. The skew tolerances seem to tight. At 
the time you get the message, hitting the Pause button clears the 
error and allows you to print anyway. 

Kirk