Digital BW, The Print

Several of the best in my print exchange still use old 1280s...one of
them was recently shopping for another 1280. I doubt either gentleman
is nuts, and both are in the business of selling prints.

Presumably problems with 1280 are due to operator practices or
individual machine quirks, since they've served so many for so long.

Unfortunately there do seem to be a lot of posts about 2400 feed
problems. I wonder if 300gsm isn't worse with them than with 2200?

2200 seems to offer advantages over both 1280 (oem pigments better
than oem inks archivally) and 2400 ... media-tolerant, much like 1280.

These Epson machines are all miracles ...they're not designed to last
forever and quality control can only go so far at the low price (2400
is cheaper than my office laser printer). 

In addition, they are designed and built specifically for people who
are creatively incompetent, like myself :-)

John





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas meeuwsen
<lipshurt@...> wrote:
>
> I used the 1280 with MIS ut2 inks, and it was a major pain to load  
> the ink, and it simply never really worked very well. Constant  
> cleaning cycles and wasted paper. It always took more that one sheet  
> per print. At least one print to see that it needed a cleaning cycle,  
> even when the nozzle checks were Ok.
> On the 2400, I have never even done one cleaning cylce in two years.  
> And It always nails the print the first time, exactly like the Mac  
> (CRT) screen, with no fancy calibrations. I am sure I have saved the  
> price of the printer in paper costs...(probably an exaggeration, but  
> hey)
> The 2400 really works great, all the time. You simply cannot say that  
> about the 1280 with pigment inks. Not even close. It can barely sit  
> for 12 hours without getting a clog. Sometimes my 2400 sits for two  
> weeks or more......the machines are worlds apart in quality/
> Dm
> On Jul 17, 2007, at 8:48 PM, djon43 wrote:
> 
> >
> > 1280 is great with MIS, but then you're stuck with MIS only because
> > the OEM for 1280 is nowhere as good as OEM for 2200.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>