Digital BW, The Print

> What is the best printer for B&W printing overall, Be it with Peizo or
> MIS?  I know a few art directors who don't like their 3000s and I may
> be able to pick up one used..What is a used 3000 worth?

So far I only have experience with Epson 3000, using MIS cartridges, but
I am pleased with the purchase, and how it prints using Photoshop 5.0.

I bought my Epson 3000 on eBay 2 weeks ago, for $520.00, with a set of
full MIS cartridges, and a set of MIS cleaning cartridges included, but
without an RIP or Ethernet card. I monitored eBay auctions for about a
month prior to bidding, and the prices are pretty tight for well kept
machines, between $500 and $600, with machines that include RIP's and
Ethernet cards, or other nice extras going in the upper $500's, up to as
much as $700, for a fully loaded machine. (RIP, card, docs, drivers, low
page count, etc.)

With resale values like these, a lot of people must think the 3000 is a
considerably better machine than the Epson 1520, which barely breaks the
$300 mark, even with a RIP and an Ethernet card.

-wittig http://www.robertwittig.com/
A business is as honest as its advertisements.
.

With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
your photos.
How much has it been used? I'd say $400 should be a fair price.

Jerry

ursusluminos wrote:

> 
> What is the best printer for B&W printing overall, Be it with Peizo or
> MIS?  I know a few art directors who don't like their 3000s and I may
> be able to pick up one used..What is a used 3000 worth?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Rob Wilke
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

on 8/9/02 3:06 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

> With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
> your photos.

I have prints from Paul Roark and Tyler Boley that tell me otherwise. The
3000 prints I've seen printed through a good partitioned workflow look
great!

Todd

> > With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
> > your photos.
>
> I have prints from Paul Roark and Tyler Boley that tell me otherwise. The
> 3000 prints I've seen printed through a good partitioned workflow look
> great!
>
> Todd

Hi Todd,

Now, here's the question to follow up the "more than 1000 tones" issue...
How do the Rourke curve prints compare to the Piezo prints?  Is the tonality
better?  In the transitions?  I believe you see where I'm going with this...

Regards,

Austin

on 8/9/02 3:25 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
>>> With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
>>> your photos.
>> 
>> I have prints from Paul Roark and Tyler Boley that tell me otherwise. The
>> 3000 prints I've seen printed through a good partitioned workflow look
>> great!
>> 
>> Todd
> 
> Hi Todd,
> 
> Now, here's the question to follow up the "more than 1000 tones" issue...
> How do the Rourke curve prints compare to the Piezo prints?  Is the tonality
> better?  In the transitions?  I believe you see where I'm going with this...
> 

I think I do, like does it add tones...

Hopefully someone who's compared prints made through each can answer you, I
still don't own the Piezo driver. If you try the Randall workflow I sent you
you can try a partitioned workflow with your Piezo inks and compare both. I
think it's geared toward an 1160 with EAM paper.

From what I've heard, and seen from print exchanges, I think you get a
different look to the dither, and on some papers you may get a slight dmax
advantage from the RGB/Epson driver workflow, but generally they both
produce "similar" tonality.

Wish I could be more help. I have a feeling this requires side by side
prints and a loupe to really answer. Then it'll vary by paper, profile,
image, etc. 

Did you print the 256 step wedge? How many steps could you distinguish. I
think someone on the Piezo list said they did it and it looked like a
gradient...

Todd

on 8/9/02 3:59 PM, Todd Flashner wrote:

> Did you print the 256 step wedge? How many steps could you distinguish. I
> think someone on the Piezo list said they did it and it looked like a
> gradient...

If the above is true, that the 256 step wedge looks like a gradient when
printed through Piezo, does that prove that it can't print 1000 tones (as
in, can't even print 256) or does that prove that perhaps it can, and all
the added gradations are obscuring the difference between the steps?...

Todd

> Did you print the 256 step wedge? How many steps could you distinguish. I
> think someone on the Piezo list said they did it and it looked like a
> gradient...
>
> Todd

Yes, I did.  Well, some of the steps are distinguishable...only about %20 at
best...and some ranges of them are not at all, they look like a gradient.
There were some values in the step wedge that needed adjusting, so I need to
print the new step wedge.

Regards,

Austin

When you do have a file ready to go please post to the files section on the
list.  Currently, using Imageprint I'm getting visible 0.5% separation
throughout the tonal range...this would be nearly 200 visible steps...but
I'd really like to try someone else's file to double check.  The imageprint
ramp that I'm getting is much smoother than anything that I've seen from a
piezo  or epson driver workflow to date...need to make a couple more tweaks
and then I will post epson 1280, piezo vs. imageprint piezotone comparisons.
Does anyone have an RGB workflow that works on a size color printer with
standard ink loadings...I remember that this was a problem with the RGB
workflow a while back...I've only used it in my 1160...and this is printer
is now retired.

Robert

On 8/9/02 1:14 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

>> Did you print the 256 step wedge? How many steps could you distinguish. I
>> think someone on the Piezo list said they did it and it looked like a
>> gradient...
>> 
>> Todd
> 
> Yes, I did.  Well, some of the steps are distinguishable...only about %20 at
> best...and some ranges of them are not at all, they look like a gradient.
> There were some values in the step wedge that needed adjusting, so I need to
> print the new step wedge.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Rob,

It depends upon your size requires and budget. Overall the 7000 and 9000
would be the way to go if you can. For desktop printing up to 13x19 then the
1280 would be the one to get. If you must have 17x22 output then go with the
3000 (the 1520 has a bad reputation for paper feeding problems). I think
that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only if you
look very closely. The 3000 is no longer on the Epson site so I am guessing
it is no longer in production. I see prices on the Web as low as $860 so I
would expect used units to be $500 or less.

Also keep in mind that a 3000 takes up a lot of desk and having access to
feed paper from the rear is important for heavy art papers.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "ursusluminos" <wilpho@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:22 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???


> What is the best printer for B&W printing overall, Be it with Peizo or
> MIS?  I know a few art directors who don't like their 3000s and I may
> be able to pick up one used..What is a used 3000 worth?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rob Wilke
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Friday, August 9, 2002, 12:25:13 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:


>> > With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
>> > your photos.
>>
>> I have prints from Paul Roark and Tyler Boley that tell me otherwise. The
>> 3000 prints I've seen printed through a good partitioned workflow look
>> great!
>>
>> Todd

AF> Hi Todd,

AF> Now, here's the question to follow up the "more than 1000 tones" issue...
AF> How do the Rourke curve prints compare to the Piezo prints?  Is the tonality
AF> better?  In the transitions?  I believe you see where I'm going with this...

AF> Regards,

AF> Austin


If you guys are going to keep "hijacking" posts please change your
subject line.  While I do appreciate your discussions, when you take
things off into another tangent but leave the same subject it gets
confusing---let alone what it does to the archives for people in the
future.  Just a friendly suggestion.....

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

What is a partitioned workflow?

Jer

When I had a 3000, I always had large dots.




Todd Flashner wrote:

> 
> on 8/9/02 3:06 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> > With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
> > your photos.
> 
> I have prints from Paul Roark and Tyler Boley that tell me otherwise. The
> 3000 prints I've seen printed through a good partitioned workflow look
> great!
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> >> > With the 3000 go piezo. Otherwise you'll have a large dot pattern in
> >> > your photos.
> >>
> >> I have prints from Paul Roark and Tyler Boley that tell me
> otherwise. The
> >> 3000 prints I've seen printed through a good partitioned workflow look
> >> great!
> >>
> >> Todd
>
> AF> Hi Todd,
>
> AF> Now, here's the question to follow up the "more than 1000
> tones" issue...
> AF> How do the Rourke curve prints compare to the Piezo prints?
> Is the tonality
> AF> better?  In the transitions?  I believe you see where I'm
> going with this...
>
> AF> Regards,
>
> AF> Austin
>
>
> If you guys are going to keep "hijacking" posts

Richard,

> please change your
> subject line.

Certainly, a simple request, but did not warrant your accusation.  I want to
point out that YOU didn't change the subject line of this post
either...shame on you!

> While I do appreciate your discussions, when you take
> things off into another tangent but leave the same subject it gets
> confusing---let alone what it does to the archives for people in the
> future.  Just a friendly suggestion.....

I certainly do understand, but please, "friendly suggestions" don't start
out with an accusation of "hijacking".  As I said, I understand, as well as
agree, and am sorry for not thinking to change it.  Simply a mere oversight,
as I'm sure your not changing it either was, and that doesn't warrant being
accused of "hijacking".

Austin

Friday, August 9, 2002, 3:38:42 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

AF> Certainly, a simple request, but did not warrant your accusation.  I want to
AF> point out that YOU didn't change the subject line of this post
AF> either...shame on you!

You are right!

>> While I do appreciate your discussions, when you take
>> things off into another tangent but leave the same subject it gets
>> confusing---let alone what it does to the archives for people in the
>> future.  Just a friendly suggestion.....

AF> I certainly do understand, but please, "friendly suggestions" don't start
AF> out with an accusation of "hijacking".  As I said, I understand, as well as
AF> agree, and am sorry for not thinking to change it.  Simply a mere oversight,
AF> as I'm sure your not changing it either was, and that doesn't warrant being
AF> accused of "hijacking".

I guess my choice of wording could have been better. I do like your
posts Austin. This forum has some of the most intelligent and in-depth
discussion of any photo forum I follow. But very often lately the
subjects to go off in another direction very quickly. And if I get
backed up in my reading at all they can so hard to follow.


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

On 8/9/02 3:12 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> wrote:

> I think
> that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only if you
> look very closely.

In my opinion...the 1280 has better output potential than both the 7000 and
the 1160 as well as vastly better output than the 3000 (huge droplets)...but
the 7000 is a wonderful machine for other reasons (large ink carts, speed,
vacuum paper feeding and 24" roll paper handling).  On a tight budget you
won't go wrong with a 1280 as long as you can be content with 13" wide max
output.  Moving up to a 7000 means about a $3000 to $4500 investment
(depending on what software you get and how good a price you get for a used
$7000).

Robert

I still see the 3000 on the Epson North America site. It has been removed 
from the Ink Jet Printers section but is still in the Wide Format Printers 
section (which also maps to the old Pro site address of 
http://prographics.epson.com).

BTW, Martin, I really appreciate all your information about the PT Selenium 
inks. I'm going out tonight to get a 1280 so I can get back into the Piezo 
inks with the PT Seleniums.

Jeff Greer

At 03:12 PM 08/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>Rob,
>
>It depends upon your size requires and budget. Overall the 7000 and 9000
>would be the way to go if you can. For desktop printing up to 13x19 then the
>1280 would be the one to get. If you must have 17x22 output then go with the
>3000 (the 1520 has a bad reputation for paper feeding problems). I think
>that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only if you
>look very closely. The 3000 is no longer on the Epson site so I am guessing
>it is no longer in production. I see prices on the Web as low as $860 so I
>would expect used units to be $500 or less.
>
>Also keep in mind that a 3000 takes up a lot of desk and having access to
>feed paper from the rear is important for heavy art papers.
>
>Martin Wesley
>
>http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ursusluminos" <wilpho@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:22 AM
>Subject: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???
>
>
> > What is the best printer for B&W printing overall, Be it with Peizo or
> > MIS?  I know a few art directors who don't like their 3000s and I may
> > be able to pick up one used..What is a used 3000 worth?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Rob Wilke
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hello Martin,

I have not posted here for several months. Back in Feb/Mar, I 
printed literally hundreds of density strips and photo snips
with my 2000P to see if there was any duo/tri/quad tone setup
that would enable quality BW prints. The MIS and Lyson greyscale
inks were a disaster IMO. I printed a small portfolio, but was
been extremely discouraged with the green/purple undertones 
and pretty much gave up for a while ...

Since there seems to be no hope for the 2000P, I wish to purchase
a BW dedicated printer....

The 1280 for 13x19 and 3000 for 17x22 ?? Will resolution of
the 3000 make worthwhile 13x19 ? Is it required that
the 3000 use the Piezo drivers for proper dithering ??

It is unfortunate that there is such a $$ gap in printers
in that a semipro $1500 to $2000 printer does  not exist.

Thanks,
Alex P
Orlando Fla

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Rob,
> 
> It depends upon your size requires and budget. Overall the 7000 and 
9000
> would be the way to go if you can. For desktop printing up to 13x19 
then the
> 1280 would be the one to get. If you must have 17x22 output then go 
with the
> 3000 (the 1520 has a bad reputation for paper feeding problems). I 
think
> that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only 
if you
> look very closely. The 3000 is no longer on the Epson site so I am 
guessing
> it is no longer in production. I see prices on the Web as low as 
$860 so I
> would expect used units to be $500 or less.
> 
> Also keep in mind that a 3000 takes up a lot of desk and having 
access to

> feed paper from the rear is important for heavy art papers.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
> 
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "J Greer" <jgpinfo@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???


> I still see the 3000 on the Epson North America site. It has been removed
> from the Ink Jet Printers section but is still in the Wide Format Printers
> section (which also maps to the old Pro site address of
> http://prographics.epson.com).

Jeff,

Thanks for the pointer and I am glad to see it is still in the Epson line up
as there is no other printer in this size and price range.
>
> BTW, Martin, I really appreciate all your information about the PT
Selenium
> inks. I'm going out tonight to get a 1280 so I can get back into the Piezo
> inks with the PT Seleniums.

Let us know how it goes and what you think of the results. Considering how a
lot of the original Piezo users feel about it, your input will be of great
interest.

Martin Wesley

>
> At 03:12 PM 08/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Rob,
> >
> >It depends upon your size requires and budget. Overall the 7000 and 9000
> >would be the way to go if you can. For desktop printing up to 13x19 then
the
> >1280 would be the one to get. If you must have 17x22 output then go with
the
> >3000 (the 1520 has a bad reputation for paper feeding problems). I think
> >that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only if
you
> >look very closely. The 3000 is no longer on the Epson site so I am
guessing
> >it is no longer in production. I see prices on the Web as low as $860 so
I
> >would expect used units to be $500 or less.
> >
> >Also keep in mind that a 3000 takes up a lot of desk and having access to
> >feed paper from the rear is important for heavy art papers.
> >
> >Martin Wesley
> >
> >http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ursusluminos" <wilpho@...>
> >To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:22 AM
> >Subject: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???
> >
> >
> > > What is the best printer for B&W printing overall, Be it with Peizo or
> > > MIS?  I know a few art directors who don't like their 3000s and I may
> > > be able to pick up one used..What is a used 3000 worth?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Rob Wilke
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and
> >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
to
> >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same
> >page.
> > >
> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > - Include your full name with your message.
> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
> >them short.
> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> >&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
> >resources on the homepage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same
> >page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- Include your full name with your message.
> >- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
> >them short.
> >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> >&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> >- Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> >resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi Richard,

> I do like your
> posts Austin. This forum has some of the most intelligent and in-depth
> discussion of any photo forum I follow.

Thank you.

> But very often lately the
> subjects to go off in another direction very quickly.

Yeah, no kidding!  Don't believe for one second I enjoy arguing about C
compilers...and overflow flags, or much or anything for that matter...I'd
rather be scanning, shooting, developing or printing...or with my family ;-)

Regards,

Austin

----- Original Message -----
From: "a_pettit_jr" <a_pettit_jr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???


> Hello Martin,
>
> I have not posted here for several months. Back in Feb/Mar, I
> printed literally hundreds of density strips and photo snips
> with my 2000P to see if there was any duo/tri/quad tone setup
> that would enable quality BW prints. The MIS and Lyson greyscale
> inks were a disaster IMO. I printed a small portfolio, but was
> been extremely discouraged with the green/purple undertones
> and pretty much gave up for a while ...

Alex,

I have received a few 2000P prints in the various print exchanges and they
were quite nice when viewed in the light they were intended for. Some of the
ones I liked best had been balanced for daylight and were then purple in
tungsten light. This actually was quite interesting and not too different
from some 19th century prints I have seen.

In the exchanges I have gotten a couple of prints using the original MIS
quad inks and I have to say I was very surprised after all the stories I
have read. The particular print I have in mind was a portrait and of top
quality. I think that may be a case that with dogged persistence just about
anything can be used if you are willing to put in the time and suffer the
aggravation.
>
> Since there seems to be no hope for the 2000P, I wish to purchase
> a BW dedicated printer....

I think this is the best approach in general. Neutral tone B&W prints from a
full color ink set seem like an up hill battle. Not that it can't be done
but it is not the easiest path to follow.
>
> The 1280 for 13x19 and 3000 for 17x22 ?? Will resolution of
> the 3000 make worthwhile 13x19 ? Is it required that
> the 3000 use the Piezo drivers for proper dithering ??

I have seen very nice prints from 8.5x11 to 17x22 done on the 3000 with the
Epson driver and with the Piezo driver. The trade off is that if you get out
a loupe or look very closely you are going to see some dots in the highest
tones of a print done with the 3000 and the Epson driver. Unless you are
going to do a lot of 17x22 prints I would go with the 1280. Given the
rebates it is pretty inexpensive and if you really need the larger output
you could add a 3000 later. Remember that if you buy the Piezo driver it
supports both printers. It would be interesting to know how may 3000 owners
also have smaller printers for use with the smaller paper sizes.
>
> It is unfortunate that there is such a $$ gap in printers
> in that a semipro $1500 to $2000 printer does  not exist.

I agree and I am completely baffled. There was much talk that the 2200 is a
"prosumer" printer and I am inclined to disagree. "Prosumers" are typically
willing to spend considerably more than that. Epson should know this from
their scanner product line and the success they had with the 1600 series
that was in the $1,100 to $1,600 range. I would welcome an updated version
of the 3000 with six or seven heads, the 17" paper width and a reliable
paper transport priced between $1,000 and $2,000. In my opinion Epson really
blew it with the 5000 and 5500 by not making them 17" printers.

The current price gap between the desktop printers and the wide 7000, 9000
and 10000 series is huge. I can't believe they are passing up the marketing
opportunity to offer something new in that range.

Martin


>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley"
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Rob,
> >
> > It depends upon your size requires and budget. Overall the 7000 and
> 9000
> > would be the way to go if you can. For desktop printing up to 13x19
> then the
> > 1280 would be the one to get. If you must have 17x22 output then go
> with the
> > 3000 (the 1520 has a bad reputation for paper feeding problems). I
> think
> > that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only
> if you
> > look very closely. The 3000 is no longer on the Epson site so I am
> guessing
> > it is no longer in production. I see prices on the Web as low as
> $860 so I
> > would expect used units to be $500 or less.
> >
> > Also keep in mind that a 3000 takes up a lot of desk and having
> access to
> > feed paper from the rear is important for heavy art papers.
> >
> > Martin Wesley
> >
> > http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I'll definitely share my experience. May be a few weeks before I do so. I 
want to live with the prints for a while before sharing opinions.

Jeff Greer

At 06:23 PM 08/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J Greer" <jgpinfo@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:03 PM
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???
>
>
> > I still see the 3000 on the Epson North America site. It has been removed
> > from the Ink Jet Printers section but is still in the Wide Format Printers
> > section (which also maps to the old Pro site address of
> > http://prographics.epson.com).
>
>Jeff,
>
>Thanks for the pointer and I am glad to see it is still in the Epson line up
>as there is no other printer in this size and price range.
> >
> > BTW, Martin, I really appreciate all your information about the PT
>Selenium
> > inks. I'm going out tonight to get a 1280 so I can get back into the Piezo
> > inks with the PT Seleniums.
>
>Let us know how it goes and what you think of the results. Considering how a
>lot of the original Piezo users feel about it, your input will be of great
>interest.
>
>Martin Wesley
>
> >
> > At 03:12 PM 08/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Rob,
> > >
> > >It depends upon your size requires and budget. Overall the 7000 and 9000
> > >would be the way to go if you can. For desktop printing up to 13x19 then
>the
> > >1280 would be the one to get. If you must have 17x22 output then go with
>the
> > >3000 (the 1520 has a bad reputation for paper feeding problems). I think
> > >that the 1280 has the edge over the 3000 in output quality but only if
>you
> > >look very closely. The 3000 is no longer on the Epson site so I am
>guessing
> > >it is no longer in production. I see prices on the Web as low as $860 so
>I
> > >would expect used units to be $500 or less.
> > >
> > >Also keep in mind that a 3000 takes up a lot of desk and having access to
> > >feed paper from the rear is important for heavy art papers.
> > >
> > >Martin Wesley
> > >
> > >http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "ursusluminos" <wilpho@...>
> > >To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:22 AM
> > >Subject: [Digital BW] Best printer for B&W Printing???
> > >
> > >
> > > > What is the best printer for B&W printing overall, Be it with Peizo or
> > > > MIS?  I know a few art directors who don't like their 3000s and I may
> > > > be able to pick up one used..What is a used 3000 worth?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Rob Wilke
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
>and
> > >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > > >
> > > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
>to
> > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
>same
> > >page.
> > > >
> > > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > > - Include your full name with your message.
> > > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
>keep
> > >them short.
> > > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
>header.
> > > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > >&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
>various
> > >resources on the homepage.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> > >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > >
> > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
>same
> > >page.
> > >
> > >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > >- Include your full name with your message.
> > >- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
>keep
> > >them short.
> > >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > >&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > >- Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > >resources on the homepage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Thought I'd mention a few more things to take into consideration 
about choosing a printer.  If you are Mac based, then OS X is in 
your future.  The 1280 has a native OS X driver which doesn't 
have the custom paper size feature.  The 3000 w/the parallel to 
USB adpater is totally unsupported.  Who knows if Epson will 
release a driver.

The differences between the Epson 1280/7000 and the 3000 are  
as follows.  The 3000 prints _very_ slowly. It takes 45min @ best 
quality to print on 13x19 paper an image that is about 11x15.  
The 1280 is much quicker in better quality - I don't have the times 
available.  This translates into allowing 2wks to print a show on 
my 3000.

The quality between the 1280/7000 and the 3000 is different.  
The newer printers frequently show teeny tiny bands which run in 
the direction of the head travel. I've seen this in the print 
exchange prints and (4) 1160s and my 1280.  The 3000 doesn't 
have this artifact.  When my 3000 works, I the print quality the 
best out of all the printers.

The 3000 for the Piezography driver I think is tempermental 
bugger.  Even after you get thru any head problems and pump 
problems, you can be left w/a paper feed problem.  Even after 
replacement of the paper platten, I have problems feeding paper.  
For example, my printer now feeds PR 308, but not Eclipse 
Satine.  Sometimes EAM is feed unevenly and sometimes it's 
fine.

Some people received wonderful 3000 and are probably 
wondering what I am babbling about.  However, the quadtone 
workshop I went to had 3 brand new 3000s and none of them 
worked well enough for the Pieozgraphy driver.  That says alot 
about Epson's quality tolerances.

Given the 20% flakiness factor in Epson's finished 3000, the 
glacially slow print speed, and the lack of OS X driver support, I 
would think long & hard about investing in a 3000.

Two other points, if you decide you simply must have a 3000, 
make sure there is a good repair center w/in driving distance of 
you.  And lastly, I found there is a big difference between 11x14 
and 16x20 prints in a wet darkroom.  The same difference exists 
going from 13x19 to 17x22 so I suggest starting on a 1280 until 
your skill increases to the point a larger print makes sense.

On 8/10/02 6:14 AM, "dgabbe2001" <dgabbe@...> wrote:

> Thought I'd mention a few more things to take into consideration
> about choosing a printer.  If you are Mac based, then OS X is in
> your future.  The 1280 has a native OS X driver which doesn't
> have the custom paper size feature.

This will change in two weeks with OS 10.2...all "OS9" print driver
functions will be available and I believe that epson has already announced
an update...maybe even to be included with the OS10.2 software.
> 
> The differences between the Epson 1280/7000 and the 3000 are
> as follows.  The 3000 prints _very_ slowly. It takes 45min @ best
> quality to print on 13x19 paper an image that is about 11x15.
> The 1280 is much quicker in better quality - I don't have the times
> available.  This translates into allowing 2wks to print a show on
> my 3000.
>
Letter sized print times:

Imageprint/Piezo/1280--best quality
22 minutes

I remember, I believe Martin saying that you might be able to switch down to
1440 printing (better) and still get approximately equal quality with the
piezo driver.  My guess is that this would not be the case with either the
epson driver or imageprint...they will produce better output at the highest
setting.

Imageprint/7000--best quality (1440)
7 minutes

I believe that my 7000 prints at about twice the speed of my other 1440
printers (1270).  This is even more dramatic if you take advantage of the
wide format...a landscape 8x10 is fast to print than a portrait
8x10...likewise you get even better performance if you gang prints across a
full 24 inches. 

> The quality between the 1280/7000 and the 3000 is different.
> The newer printers frequently show teeny tiny bands which run in
> the direction of the head travel. I've seen this in the print
> exchange prints and (4) 1160s and my 1280.  The 3000 doesn't
> have this artifact.  When my 3000 works, I the print quality the
> best out of all the printers.

Not universally true...I have 1280 prints with absolutely no banding on
matte papers. The first 1280 that I got I had to be replaced because of
banding...Epson did it for free.  I have two 1270's that show no banding. I
have 1160's that used not to band...but do now after several thousand
prints. My 7000 is currently due to have its heads replaced next week
because of banding...but when the nozzles all fire...there is absolutely no
banding to a 8x lupe. It is impossible to make generalizations because
printers differ from one to another even within technology class and across
their lifespan. It is true that the lower print quality of the 3000 with its
huge droplet size does tend to hid banding...particularly with the piezo
driver...but the ultimate print quality is as a result lower.  To get the
ultimate print quality you have to be willing to keep a close eye on things
including head alignment.

My recommendations stand...buy a 1280 with CIS if 13" is wide enough...if it
isn't...dig deep into your wallet and buy a 7000.  Another possible option
is a 1270 refurb...they are about $120 less than a 1280 refurb and are also
supported by OSX.  I believe that Cone plans to support the 1270 with the
piezo software...if he doesn't already...imageprint already does.  The only
down side of the 1270 is 1440 max printing vs. 2880 printing of the
1280...but as I mentioned there has been some doubt about how much better
1280 is.

Robert

Hi Martin,
Well, I have a dozen 13x19 (12x16) prints on my living room wall that 
are fine in tungsten light. I spent endless hours creating a duotone 
curve that attempted to minimize the green in reflected daylight and 
purple of indoor lighting. Sometimes I think I get so minutely 
focused on attaining perfection that I don't realize that I have 
reached a reasonable solution....

The MIS and Lysonic inks banded badly in my 2000P. I used the Lyson 
cleaner carts etc but had banding. Swapped back to Epson stock, and 
printing was fine. I tried this a few times with equal results. And 
the Feb. editions of the tone balancing gave a very poor B to W 
gradient. 

Thanks for the reply. The 1280 looks like the current solution - I 
would have preferred to have the option of a wider carriage, but with 
my Oly E-10 as the photo source, unless I do multiframe panos, the 
13x19 paper is fine.

Best,
Alex

> 
> I have received a few 2000P prints in the various print exchanges 
and they
> were quite nice when viewed in the light they were intended for. 
Some of the
> ones I liked best had been balanced for daylight and were then 
purple in
> tungsten light. This actually was quite interesting and not too 
different
> from some 19th century prints I have seen.
> 
> In the exchanges I have gotten a couple of prints using the 
original MIS
> quad inks and I have to say I was very surprised after all the 
stories I
> have read. The particular print I have in mind was a portrait and 
of top
> quality. I think that may be a case that with dogged persistence 
just about
> anything can be used if you are willing to put in the time and 
suffer the
> aggravation.
> >

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> I remember, I believe Martin saying that you might be able to 
switch down to
> 1440 printing (better) and still get approximately equal quality 
with the
> piezo driver.  My guess is that this would not be the case with 
either the
> epson driver or imageprint...they will produce better output at 
the highest
> setting.
>

This is definitely true, I use 1440 (better) quality on the 1280 with 
no visible difference over best quality w/the piezo driver.

> > The quality between the 1280/7000 and the 3000 is different.
> > The newer printers frequently show teeny tiny bands which 
run in
> > the direction of the head travel. I've seen this in the print
> > exchange prints and (4) 1160s and my 1280.  The 3000 
doesn't
> > have this artifact.  When my 3000 works, I the print quality the
> > best out of all the printers.
> 
> Not universally true...I have 1280 prints with absolutely no 
banding on
> matte papers. The first 1280 that I got I had to be replaced 
because of
> banding...Epson did it for free.  I have two 1270's that show no 
banding. I
> have 1160's that used not to band...but do now after several 
thousand
> prints. My 7000 is currently due to have its heads replaced next 
week
> because of banding...but when the nozzles all fire...there is 
absolutely no
> banding to a 8x lupe. It is impossible to make generalizations 
because
> printers differ from one to another even within technology class 
and across
> their lifespan. It is true that the lower print quality of the 3000 
with its
> huge droplet size does tend to hid banding...particularly with 
the piezo
> driver...but the ultimate print quality is as a result lower.  To get 
the
> ultimate print quality you have to be willing to keep a close eye 
on things
> including head alignment.
> 

This thread started off as what printer should I get.  May be I 
should have communicated my first reply differently so let me 
approach this a bit differently.  While I don't necessarily disagree 
with what Robert said, I think it's not central to the following 
important issues.  They are:

1) The which printer should I get question might be better framed 
as some thing along the lines of:  I'm an accomplished silver 
printer and want to shift to quadtone inkjet printing.  I print every 
weekend and make primarily 11x14 prints.  So in a situation like 
this, what is the likely hood the printer will produce satisfactory 
prints is the most important question.

2) I believe that generalizations can be made.  I have examined 
somewhere between 25 - 50 prints from 1160s, 1280s, 7000s, 
and 9000s.  So there are likely 30 - 40 indiviidual printers.  About 
90% of the prints exhibited very fine, teeny, tiny bands which I can 
see unaided (I have good visual perpection in this regard) in the 
direction of the print head motion.  That says volumes.  And in 
fact this behavior seems independent of the inks since it's 
present in MIS and Cone samples printed w/the Cone 
Piezography driver.  May be you have to print 50 pages before the 
banding stops.  I've been had 3 1160s which have this problem.  
My 1280 has decided to run perfectly.  So if you don't like this 
artifact and you don't print frequently, chances are very high you 
will be unsatisfied.  I don't print w/the Epson driver or ImagePrint 
RIP so I don't know if the artifact is present w/them.

3) I would like to spend more time making art and less time 
running test prints.  So the important question around droplet  
size differences between the 1280 & 3000, is whether there is 
visible difference in quality between matched prints from these 2 
printers.  So far, I can't see any difference between my 3000 and 
1280.  Remember that 35mm lens perform quite closely to the 
theortical maximum limits of the lens design.  Modern 4x5 lens 
are nowhere close, but that doesn't stop anyone from shooting 
4x5 or getting stunning prints.

Dave G.

On 8/11/02 3:10 PM, "dgabbe2001" <dgabbe@...> wrote:

> This thread started off as what printer should I get.  May be I
> should have communicated my first reply differently so let me
> approach this a bit differently.  While I don't necessarily disagree
> with what Robert said, I think it's not central to the following
> important issues.  They are:
> 
> 1) The which printer should I get question might be better framed
> as some thing along the lines of:  I'm an accomplished silver
> printer and want to shift to quadtone inkjet printing.  I print every
> weekend and make primarily 11x14 prints.  So in a situation like
> this, what is the likely hood the printer will produce satisfactory
> prints is the most important question.

Buy a 1280
 
> 2) I believe that generalizations can be made.  I have examined
> somewhere between 25 - 50 prints from 1160s, 1280s, 7000s,
> and 9000s.  So there are likely 30 - 40 indiviidual printers.  About
> 90% of the prints exhibited very fine, teeny, tiny bands which I can
> see unaided (I have good visual perpection in this regard) in the
> direction of the print head motion.  That says volumes.  And in
> fact this behavior seems independent of the inks since it's
> present in MIS and Cone samples printed w/the Cone
> Piezography driver.  May be you have to print 50 pages before the
> banding stops.  I've been had 3 1160s which have this problem.
> My 1280 has decided to run perfectly.  So if you don't like this
> artifact and you don't print frequently, chances are very high you
> will be unsatisfied.  I don't print w/the Epson driver or ImagePrint
> RIP so I don't know if the artifact is present w/them.

I've seen hundreds and hundreds of prints from about that number of
printers...many people send prints out with banding in them...that's their
decision.  Personally I check prints with an 8x lupe routinely and except no
banding.  The one exception to my rule is printing on luster papers which
are really tough...I will sometimes accept minor 8x banding...but not
visible banding. If I get banding I clean the heads, replace the head,
replace the printer...in that order.  I haven't had to do the latter in very
many cases...but this is why it is good to buy a new or refurbed printer
with an epson warranty...it makes the repair/replace option less painful.  I
have had to retire two out of warranty printers because of frequent
clogging/banding... but this was after thousands of prints and some pretty
rough (testing inks) treatment.  If people take care...you can get prints
without banding from any of these printers.  I think only epson tech service
(or maybe Jon Cone) has a large enough sample to say which printers tend to
band more.
 
> 3) I would like to spend more time making art and less time
> running test prints.  So the important question around droplet
> size differences between the 1280 & 3000, is whether there is
> visible difference in quality between matched prints from these 2
> printers.  So far, I can't see any difference between my 3000 and
> 1280.  Remember that 35mm lens perform quite closely to the
> theortical maximum limits of the lens design.  Modern 4x5 lens
> are nowhere close, but that doesn't stop anyone from shooting
> 4x5 or getting stunning prints.

The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.  This is true
across all (epson driver, piezo driver, imageprint) workflows.

Robert

----- Original Message -----

From: "dgabbe2001" <dgabbe@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Best printer for B&W Printing???


(snip)> >
>
>
> 1) The which printer should I get question might be better framed
> as some thing along the lines of:  I'm an accomplished silver
> printer and want to shift to quadtone inkjet printing.  I print every
> weekend and make primarily 11x14 prints.  So in a situation like
> this, what is the likely hood the printer will produce satisfactory
> prints is the most important question.

Dave,

For many years I came home from work on Friday and went straight into my
tiny darkroom (aka the laundry room). I would get in 6 to 8 hours including
set up and clean up. On Saturdays another 6 to 14 hours. No room to do
anything any larger then 11x14. As my day job got more demanding I simply
burned out and quit printing.

I agree with Robert. Get a 1280 and the Selenium PT inks.
>
> 2) I believe that generalizations can be made.  I have examined
> somewhere between 25 - 50 prints from 1160s, 1280s, 7000s,
> and 9000s.  So there are likely 30 - 40 indiviidual printers.  About
> 90% of the prints exhibited very fine, teeny, tiny bands which I can
> see unaided (I have good visual perpection in this regard) in the
> direction of the print head motion.  That says volumes.  And in
> fact this behavior seems independent of the inks since it's
> present in MIS and Cone samples printed w/the Cone
> Piezography driver.  May be you have to print 50 pages before the
> banding stops.  I've been had 3 1160s which have this problem.
> My 1280 has decided to run perfectly.  So if you don't like this
> artifact and you don't print frequently, chances are very high you
> will be unsatisfied.  I don't print w/the Epson driver or ImagePrint
> RIP so I don't know if the artifact is present w/them.

I got white banding in the upper 3/4 tones with my 1200 and Piezo. With my
1280 if I get banding, which I have not seen in a long time on either of my
1280's, it is dark banding or corduroy in the lower 3/4 tones which is much
less noticable or unpleasant than the white banding. When I have had the
banding it occurred with both the Epson and the Piezo driver.

If you have to get out a loupe or put your nose on the print to see an
artifact, I would say, quite worrying about it and make some prints.
>
> 3) I would like to spend more time making art and less time
> running test prints.  So the important question around droplet
> size differences between the 1280 & 3000, is whether there is
> visible difference in quality between matched prints from these 2
> printers.

Not at normal viewing distances. Up close the 1280 has an edge. Neither is
perfect.

> So far, I can't see any difference between my 3000 and
> 1280.

Do you already have both? I thought you were trying to decide which one to
buy?

> Remember that 35mm lens perform quite closely to the
> theortical maximum limits of the lens design.  Modern 4x5 lens
> are nowhere close, but that doesn't stop anyone from shooting
> 4x5 or getting stunning prints.

Practical results are senior to theory.

Martin Wesley

Dave, how can you see the tiny banding on all these prints, and not be
able to tell the difference between the 3000 and 1280 printer? I can see
dots from the 3000 printer from a foot away. I can't see dots with the
1280 with a loupe. I have banding on occasion, but it is always cleared
up by a couple head cleanings.

Jerry

> 3) I would like to spend more time making art and less time
> running test prints.  So the important question around droplet
> size differences between the 1280 & 3000, is whether there is
> visible difference in quality between matched prints from these 2
> printers.  So far, I can't see any difference between my 3000 and
> 1280.  Remember that 35mm lens perform quite closely to the
> theortical maximum limits of the lens design.  Modern 4x5 lens
> are nowhere close, but that doesn't stop anyone from shooting
> 4x5 or getting stunning prints.
> 
> Dave G.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...> wrote:
snip
>It is true that the lower print quality of the 3000 with its
> huge droplet size does tend to hid banding...particularly with the piezo
> driver...but the ultimate print quality is as a result lower.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...> wrote:
snip
> The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.  This is true
> across all (epson driver, piezo driver, imageprint) workflows.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
snip
> ....I can see
> dots from the 3000 printer from a foot away.

As someone with an intimate knowledge of the 3000 and various quad workflows, with examples of output from the 1280 
and many other Epsons in front of me, I have to say-
malebovinepoop
Tyler

> In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> snip
> > The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.  This is true
> > across all (epson driver, piezo driver, imageprint) workflows.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> 
> wrote:
> snip
> > ....I can see
> >

Either you guys don't know what your talking about, or several of us are 
blind! Piezo is equal among all the printers, The dot size doesn't matter, 
piezo, or partitioned work flows are dotless period. Are Jerry and Robert 
twins? Maybe the 1280 can produce more RELIABLE prints, but better? Not even! 
3000 dots from a foot away? Come on Jerry, surely you don't think 
photographers are using the 3000 without a partitioned work flow or Piezo/  
driver? Certainly your 1280's can't make better 16x20's. I would bet neither 
one of you made any successful prints on a 3000, so that makes you experts on 
them? Why don't you just say the equipment you guys use is the best ;0) A 
good bandless/ dotless Black and white quad/hex print should be nearly 
identical regardless of printer. Jerry, you know this is a black and white 
printing group, using primarily piezo or other portioned workflows, Why would 
you say you can see 3000 dots from a foot away? Why? I know you have seen 
dotless 3000 prints from an inch away. I know your 3000 was buggy and you 
never got it to work, that's very old news. For the record I wore my 3000 out 
printing 1,000's of salable prints and have been using the 7000 piezo pro 
combo almost a year. While some camps where saving money buying cheap paper 
and cheap printers I can honestly say of all the Digital money I've spent the 
last 5 years, The 7000 piezo pro combo was the best money and the smartest 
money I've spent all along, absolutely! and I've spent a truckload of cash on 
this technology almost all of it on black and white printing. 3-4k is really 
nothing for an exhibit quality printer that can do it all from 8x10 to 24x30 
and everything in between. Unfortunately its probably easier to find a 9000! 
and the price is dropping, (big smile) :)
Jerry, sometimes you make me want to drive over there and shake you...
Steve Meyers





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

Hey guys. Can we please not get into an equipment war here? I have seen a
lot of good prints made with both the 1280 and the 3000. I have seen some
not so good ones from both as well. As the saying goes, "I isn't what you
have, it's how you use it."

Someone asked for some advice as to whether to go with a 3000 or a 1280 and
needs some opinions. Those opinions are going to vary but let's keep the
peace. Okay?

Thanks,
Martin Wesley


----- Original Message -----
From: <sdmey4@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Best printer for B&W Printing???


>
>
> > In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...>
wrote:
> > snip
> > > The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.  This is
true
> > > across all (epson driver, piezo driver, imageprint) workflows.
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...>
> > wrote:
> > snip
> > > ....I can see
> > >
>
> Either you guys don't know what your talking about, or several of us are
> blind! Piezo is equal among all the printers, The dot size doesn't matter,
> piezo, or partitioned work flows are dotless period. Are Jerry and Robert
> twins? Maybe the 1280 can produce more RELIABLE prints, but better? Not
even!
> 3000 dots from a foot away? Come on Jerry, surely you don't think
> photographers are using the 3000 without a partitioned work flow or Piezo/
> driver? Certainly your 1280's can't make better 16x20's. I would bet
neither
> one of you made any successful prints on a 3000, so that makes you experts
on
> them? Why don't you just say the equipment you guys use is the best ;0) A
> good bandless/ dotless Black and white quad/hex print should be nearly
> identical regardless of printer. Jerry, you know this is a black and white
> printing group, using primarily piezo or other portioned workflows, Why
would
> you say you can see 3000 dots from a foot away? Why? I know you have seen
> dotless 3000 prints from an inch away. I know your 3000 was buggy and you
> never got it to work, that's very old news. For the record I wore my 3000
out
> printing 1,000's of salable prints and have been using the 7000 piezo pro
> combo almost a year. While some camps where saving money buying cheap
paper
> and cheap printers I can honestly say of all the Digital money I've spent
the
> last 5 years, The 7000 piezo pro combo was the best money and the smartest
> money I've spent all along, absolutely! and I've spent a truckload of cash
on
> this technology almost all of it on black and white printing. 3-4k is
really
> nothing for an exhibit quality printer that can do it all from 8x10 to
24x30
> and everything in between. Unfortunately its probably easier to find a
9000!
> and the price is dropping, (big smile) :)
> Jerry, sometimes you make me want to drive over there and shake you...
> Steve Meyers
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.

That's simply plain wrong.  I happen to have both, and for Piezo, at least,
the 3000, though very slow, makes noticeably better prints.  I know a LOT of
people who use the 3000, and have tried other printers, and believe a good
3000 makes the best prints.  The 1280 is probably faster, and more
"reliable", no doubt.  It depends on what your criteria is.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Hey guys. Can we please not get into an equipment war here? I have seen a
> lot of good prints made with both the 1280 and the 3000. I have seen some
> not so good ones from both as well. As the saying goes, "I isn't what you
> have, it's how you use it."
> 
> Someone asked for some advice as to whether to go with a 3000 or a 1280 and
> needs some opinions. Those opinions are going to vary but let's keep the
> peace. Okay?
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin Wesley

My apologies Martin. Rather than beating my chest and grunting about 
the prowess of the particular Epson I use, I was reacting specifically 
to the fact that advice was requested. Am I wrong or did we all decide 
to go with the "world is actually round" thing a while ago? There seems 
to be misconception presented as fact in a very authorative tone that 
occassionally draws me out of my cave.

A I-have-more-wives-and-livestock-and-my-Epson-is-better-than-yours 
thread would be entirely different. While amusing for about 5 minutes, 
I wouldn't want anything to do with it. Steve's been doing quads even 
longer than I. He started during the Johnston administration I think, 
I'm sure he's simply frustrated with new "ideas" as well. It's probably 
just an old guy thing.
Tyler

I wasn't talking about piezo prints, if you're referring to my post.
Using the Epson driver, the 1280 wins hands down by a large margin. With
Piezo, It really doesn't make a lot of difference. You can't see dots
with either printer, and the 3000 sure did have its paper handling
problems. At least MY 2 3000 printers did.

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.
> 
> That's simply plain wrong.  I happen to have both, and for Piezo, at least,
> the 3000, though very slow, makes noticeably better prints.  I know a LOT of
> people who use the 3000, and have tried other printers, and believe a good
> 3000 makes the best prints.  The 1280 is probably faster, and more
> "reliable", no doubt.  It depends on what your criteria is.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Jerry,

All I can guess is you were printing B&W with the 3000 using the Epson
dither pattern, using only a single black ink...yes, it's terrible...but
simply don't do that!  I understand that people who use the Rourke curves,
don't see dots either, and the prints are equally as good as with Piezo.

Can the 1280 print 17x22?  No? Isn't that "a paper handling problem" ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:53 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Best printer for B&W Printing???
>
>
> I wasn't talking about piezo prints, if you're referring to my post.
> Using the Epson driver, the 1280 wins hands down by a large margin. With
> Piezo, It really doesn't make a lot of difference. You can't see dots
> with either printer, and the 3000 sure did have its paper handling
> problems. At least MY 2 3000 printers did.
>
> Jerry
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.
> >
> > That's simply plain wrong.  I happen to have both, and for
> Piezo, at least,
> > the 3000, though very slow, makes noticeably better prints.  I
> know a LOT of
> > people who use the 3000, and have tried other printers, and
> believe a good
> > 3000 makes the best prints.  The 1280 is probably faster, and more
> > "reliable", no doubt.  It depends on what your criteria is.
> >
> > Austin

Austin, I wasn't printing with the black ink only. I can see dots, quite
large dots in black and white prints made with the 3000 printer and the
color fotonic inks, which I was using in that printer.  I did not use VM
inks in that printer.

jerry

I had a LOT of trouble with both 3000 printers I had, so I gave up on them







Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> All I can guess is you were printing B&W with the 3000 using the Epson
> dither pattern, using only a single black ink...yes, it's terrible...but
> simply don't do that!  I understand that people who use the Rourke curves,
> don't see dots either, and the prints are equally as good as with Piezo.
> 
> Can the 1280 print 17x22?  No? Isn't that "a paper handling problem" ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:53 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Best printer for B&W Printing???
> >
> >
> > I wasn't talking about piezo prints, if you're referring to my post.
> > Using the Epson driver, the 1280 wins hands down by a large margin. With
> > Piezo, It really doesn't make a lot of difference. You can't see dots
> > with either printer, and the 3000 sure did have its paper handling
> > problems. At least MY 2 3000 printers did.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > > The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.
> > >
> > > That's simply plain wrong.  I happen to have both, and for
> > Piezo, at least,
> > > the 3000, though very slow, makes noticeably better prints.  I
> > know a LOT of
> > > people who use the 3000, and have tried other printers, and
> > believe a good
> > > 3000 makes the best prints.  The 1280 is probably faster, and more
> > > "reliable", no doubt.  It depends on what your criteria is.
> > >
> > > Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Jerry,

I know I don't see dots with the naked eye from prints with my 3000...with
my glasses off...print about 6 inches from my eye, and I don't believe
others do either...so all I can guess is it was something in your set-up.
It should not be ink dependant, I don't believe, unless, as I said, you are
really only using the black ink position and the Epson B&W dither...which is
pretty globby.

Out of curiosity, what was your workflow?  How were you making B&W prints
with "color fotonic inks"?  I am not familiar with those inks, and I don't
know how that works.  If they are color inks, then you are really mostly, or
only, using the black ink...

Austin

> Austin, I wasn't printing with the black ink only. I can see dots, quite
> large dots in black and white prints made with the 3000 printer and the
> color fotonic inks, which I was using in that printer.  I did not use VM
> inks in that printer.
>
> jerry
>
> I had a LOT of trouble with both 3000 printers I had, so I gave up on them
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > All I can guess is you were printing B&W with the 3000 using the Epson
> > dither pattern, using only a single black ink...yes, it's terrible...but
> > simply don't do that!  I understand that people who use the
> Rourke curves,
> > don't see dots either, and the prints are equally as good as with Piezo.
> >
> > Can the 1280 print 17x22?  No? Isn't that "a paper handling problem" ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:53 AM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Best printer for B&W Printing???
> > >
> > >
> > > I wasn't talking about piezo prints, if you're referring to my post.
> > > Using the Epson driver, the 1280 wins hands down by a large
> margin. With
> > > Piezo, It really doesn't make a lot of difference. You can't see dots
> > > with either printer, and the 3000 sure did have its paper handling
> > > problems. At least MY 2 3000 printers did.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The 1280 is capable of producing better prints than a 3000.
> > > >
> > > > That's simply plain wrong.  I happen to have both, and for
> > > Piezo, at least,
> > > > the 3000, though very slow, makes noticeably better prints.  I
> > > know a LOT of
> > > > people who use the 3000, and have tried other printers, and
> > > believe a good
> > > > 3000 makes the best prints.  The 1280 is probably faster, and more
> > > > "reliable", no doubt.  It depends on what your criteria is.
> > > >
> > > > Austin

On 8/12/02 9:32 PM, "sdmey4@..." <sdmey4@...> wrote:

> Either you guys don't know what your talking about, or several of us are
> blind! Piezo is equal among all the printers, The dot size doesn't matter,
> piezo, or partitioned work flows are dotless period. Are Jerry and Robert
> twins? 

Wow I resent that!  Ha Ha...I hate blue prints...Ha Ha...oh and I have 20:15
in one eye and 20:10 in the other...yes...that's better than 20:20...so my
ophthalmologist says I'm not blind.

>Maybe the 1280 can produce more RELIABLE prints, but better?

There is more in life than Piezo and Epson drivers, friends.  When you start
to investigate the other options out there some commercial (like Imageprint)
and some experimental you realize that much, much more can be drawn out of
these printers.  When you do this...you also realize that "dot size" does
start to matter...I agree it doesn't matter much in the piezo driver.  This
isn't a big issue if you are using the piezo driver...but personally...I
know for a fact that you will have many, many more options as to how you
print if you stick with a 1280 over a 3000 because many of the new driver
options that will and are coming out now will not support the 3000.  As I
said before, if you need something larger than 13" output then the 3000 with
the piezo driver is a good low cost option.

Robert

Austin, I DID see dots and they looked like terrible tri x grain, only
much smoother, of course.  That was one of the major complaints of the
3000 printer, Large dots, many paper handling/feeding troubles, prints
that were't square, banding, etc. I had nothing but trouble with 2 of
the printers. Same trouble with both of them. Both were new printers,
one that epson replaced. I never used black ink with the 3000 but one
time, after I saw how God-awful it was.  I never used anything but
Fotonic or Piezo inks in that printer.

Jerry

Fotonic inks are the same as the Luminos Silver inks. I had no profiles
back then, though.

I was NOT talking about piezo prints when I mentioned the large dots!!

Jerry

> > Either you guys don't know what your talking about, or several of us are
> > blind! Piezo is equal among all the printers, The dot size doesn't matter,
> > piezo, or partitioned work flows are dotless period. Are Jerry and Robert
> > twins?
> 
> Wow I resent that!  Ha Ha...I hate blue prints...Ha Ha...oh and I have 20:15
> in one eye and 20:10 in the other...yes...that's better than 20:20...so my
> ophthalmologist says I'm not blind.
> 
> >Maybe the 1280 can produce more RELIABLE prints, but better?
> 
> There is more in life than Piezo and Epson drivers, friends.  When you start
> to investigate the other options out there some commercial (like Imageprint)
> and some experimental you realize that much, much more can be drawn out of
> these printers.  When you do this...you also realize that "dot size" does
> start to matter...I agree it doesn't matter much in the piezo driver.  This
> isn't a big issue if you are using the piezo driver...but personally...I
> know for a fact that you will have many, many more options as to how you
> print if you stick with a 1280 over a 3000 because many of the new driver
> options that will and are coming out now will not support the 3000.  As I
> said before, if you need something larger than 13" output then the 3000 with
> the piezo driver is a good low cost option.

Hi Jerry,

> I never used black ink with the 3000 but one
> time...

Any of the inks have to have black, don't they?

> I never used anything but
> Fotonic or Piezo inks in that printer.
>
> Fotonic inks are the same as the Luminos Silver inks. I had no profiles
> back then, though.

Did you use the Piezo driver, or the Epson driver, and if you used the Epson
driver, what was your workflow?  As I said, people using the Rourke workflow
don't see dots (and that's not the Piezo driver)...so I'm curious what you
were doing so that you did.

Austin

Austin, this was years ago. I didn't know then what I know now. I wasn't
using Paul's curves. I don't think he even had them when I had my first
3000. I used piezo inks, when they had all the bugs in the software,
Screendoor patterns, vertical stripes instead of actual images, etc.  I
switched to fotonic, which were fantastic for color prints, but had mega
metamerism with black and white prints.

Jerry

> Did you use the Piezo driver, or the Epson driver, and if you used the Epson
> driver, what was your workflow?  As I said, people using the Rourke workflow
> don't see dots (and that's not the Piezo driver)...so I'm curious what you
> were doing so that you did.
>