Digital BW, The Print

Fellow Photographers,
Having read a review on the Epson R800 by Alain Breat on the Luminous Landscape site, 
(www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml), I was thrown into a 
bit of a quandary.  In his review, Breat states that the R800 prints glossy with "no bronzing 
whatsoever".  He writes that the R800 features both matte and photoblack cartridges that 
allow black and white printing with clean untainted whites.  Head to head against the 
Epson 2200, he claims the R800 produces slightly more shadow detail and minor 
increases in color density and saturation.  Now, here is what I find so interesting:  He 
explains that the R800 has replaced light cyan and light majenta cartridges with blue and 
red cartridges.  He says the R800 doesn't have the light black cartridge but does have a 
cartridge called a "gloss optimizer".  It is this cartridge which lays down over the whole 
print a "varnish" that completely does away with bronzing.  But what throws me into 
indecision about buying a 4000 is his statement that "My educated guess is that we will 
soon see the gloss optimizer on larger Epson printers such as the 4000, 7600,9600, and 
the 10,600".  My quandary is this:  Should I lay out almost two grand for the present Epson 
4000 and shortly after find that Epson has updated the 4000 to include a gloss optimizer 
and replacing two inks with two different inks producing a machine that would be 
significantly superior to the original 4000 and making my 4000 worth a lot less and being 
relegated to dinosaur status and a severe drop in value?  I would not be a happy voyager!  I 
am reminded of when I bought my Canon D60 for around two thousand and two weeks 
later Canon discontinued that camera and replaced it with a camera with superior low light 
focusing and cut the price a full $500!  So the bottom line here for those of us lusting 
after a 4000 is whether to forge ahead and invest in the 4000 or hold off until they fill the 
orders they have and wait until Epson offers an upgraded 4000 with all the above goodies?  
It is just my opinion but what Epson has done with the R800 they will probably do with the 
4000.  Any thoughts?
Joe Davajon

Like all things digital, be they cameras, computers, printers, TV,
whatever...

When you need to buy, buy the biggest bang for your buck and don't look
back.


On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 02:12, Joe Davajon wrote:

> Fellow Photographers,
> My quandary is this:  Should I lay out almost two grand for the present Epson 
> 4000 and shortly after find that Epson has updated the 4000 to include a gloss optimizer 
> and replacing two inks with two different inks producing a machine that would be 
> significantly superior to the original 4000 and making my 4000 worth a lot less and being 
> relegated to dinosaur status and a severe drop in value?  
> Joe Davajon


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

This was also discussed a long while ago when speculation was rife as 
to what inkset would be used in the 4000. 
I guess the answer I remember seeing then is still valid now.  The 
4000 is a professional machine designed for medium to high volume 
exhibition quality prints.  The R800 is designed for the home photo 
enthusiast market.
Put a 5760dpi 1.5pl head in a machine the size of the 4000 and it 
will slow down to a crawl, killing it's viability as a fast 
commercial machine.  One of the ways the R800 printer succeeds so 
well in removing the Cl and Ml inks is that the dots are so small the 
lighter inks are not needed.  The droplet size of the 4000 is limited 
to 3.5pl and in it's current guise could not take the R800 inkset.
I guess therefore reckon on the *600 replacements and 4000 
replacements continuing to be evolutions of their current 
stablemates, perhaps the *600 replacements will take some of the 4000 
advantages, the dual black inks, the faster print head, higher nozzle 
count, better profiles, smaller droplet size etc.  The R800 inks 
will, you can pretty much be sure, find their way into a 13" carriage 
at some point, but I really suspect it will stay in the domestic 
domain - maybe the '1380' who knows.

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth 
<hogarth@s...> wrote:
> Like all things digital, be they cameras, computers, printers, TV,
> whatever...
> 
> When you need to buy, buy the biggest bang for your buck and don't 
look
> back.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 02:12, Joe Davajon wrote:
> 
> > Fellow Photographers,
> > My quandary is this:  Should I lay out almost two grand for the 
present Epson 
> > 4000 and shortly after find that Epson has updated the 4000 to 
include a gloss optimizer 
> > and replacing two inks with two different inks producing a 
machine that would be 
> > significantly superior to the original 4000 and making my 4000 
worth a lot less and being 

> > relegated to dinosaur status and a severe drop in value?  
> > Joe Davajon
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

scrber wrote:
> This was also discussed a long while ago when speculation was rife as 
> to what inkset would be used in the 4000. 
> I guess the answer I remember seeing then is still valid now.  The 
> 4000 is a professional machine designed for medium to high volume 
> exhibition quality prints.  The R800 is designed for the home photo 
> enthusiast market.
> Put a 5760dpi 1.5pl head in a machine the size of the 4000 and it 
> will slow down to a crawl, killing it's viability as a fast 
> commercial machine.  One of the ways the R800 printer succeeds so 
> well in removing the Cl and Ml inks is that the dots are so small the 
> lighter inks are not needed.  The droplet size of the 4000 is limited 
> to 3.5pl and in it's current guise could not take the R800 inkset.
> I guess therefore reckon on the *600 replacements and 4000 
> replacements continuing to be evolutions of their current 
> stablemates, perhaps the *600 replacements will take some of the 4000 
> advantages, the dual black inks, the faster print head, higher nozzle 
> count, better profiles, smaller droplet size etc.  The R800 inks 
> will, you can pretty much be sure, find their way into a 13" carriage 
> at some point, but I really suspect it will stay in the domestic 
> domain - maybe the '1380' who knows.
> 
> Steve

Future Wales Ltd has all kinds of plans for the 4000. Whether we 
will see one working with an R800 inkset on the Fotokina in 
September is hard to predict.

Ernst

 From the Epson Wide Format List:

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

My name is John Edmunds and I am the Technical Director for 
Future's. It would be unfair for me to influence you as to which 
Inks to use, but here is some general advice and, should you be 
interested in our beta test program for both inks and substrates 
contact suewilliams@... she is our agent in North America.

To get the best out of any of the new Printers you should 
consider the following:

1.    Get the best and largest printer you can afford.

2.    I have used the EP 4000 and consider it the best work horse 
that Epson has ever produced and we have the 7600,7500/7000, 9600 
and the 4000 (Even better than the 3000 was) it has many advantages:-
         a.    eight colour slots
         b.    fast
         c.    will be fully supported by many Rip's
         d.    Third party Ink Manufacturers will fully support 
it with profiles if they have any sense and understanding of 
user's needs.

3.    Get a "good" bulk ink system, that eliminates air ingress 
into the system this should help to prevent head dry-out and 
clogging. (Symphonic's new system is perfect for the 4000 what 
ever ink you may use.)

4.    Make sure that whoever supplies your ink  can also supply 
you with profiles for the papers you wish to use and that they 
have and can offer support in your country.

As I said I don't want to influence you in your choice of inks 
etc., however here are some of the advantages of our system:

1.     We are a research company.

2.     We licence our technology to several top name Fine Art 
Paper manufacturers, who use our ink receptive coatings and we 
have just signed a manufacturing contract with a major Ink 
manufacturer, to make our new, Water-proof, exceptionally 
Wide-gamut, Extended-archival Dye based inks, they will be 
manufactured both in the USA and Europe.

3.    When matched with our new substrates, the ink when dry 
cannot be re-solubulised.

4.    we are aiming to release  the following at "Photokina" in 
Germany in September

      A new Fine Art Paper that is "Probably the most archival 
paper in the world - it is 100% first cotton bud with no OBA's 
the paper will feel no different than any normal fine art paper 
without an inkjet "Coating" but it will have an ink receptive 
ingredient in the pulp leaving the paper "truly natural" and it 
will not "rub off" or be marked by fingerprints and it is water 
repellent in its own right.

We will be releasing a film with the same characteristics as the 
paper and a new range of  Canvas and Fabrics all with the same 
features.

In addition we will soon be releasing a "Liquid lamination" along 
with an applicator for production work although you could use an 
old printer as it will have the same flow characteristics as our ink.

Note:- Our Inks will work equally as well in all of the Epson 
Printers and we will supply a full range of colours e.g.: 
C,M,Y,K,Grey,Lc,Lm, R,G,B, O,G, and a range of Black sets e.g.:- 
Blue-Black, Warm-Black, Grey Range, and WHITE.

I hope this will be of use to you and if you have any questions 
call me on +44 1495 792777 or email me your phone No. and I will 
try to help you further.

John

Dr. John Edmunds
Futures (Wales) Ltd.
Studio's 5/7
Torfean Business Centre
Gilchrist Thomas Estate
Blaenafon NP4 9RL
Wales. UK


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Joe,  

If you intend on making large prints, the 4000 should
be a nice printer - but somehow I doubt that they will
replace it very soon.  The 3000 it replaces has been
an institution since it came out in 1998?  However,
they are always upgrading their line - so just buy
what you want when you can afford it and don't worry
about what comes next.  That being said - your D60 is
a bummer of a story.

All of my images are 6x9 or smaller - so I am happy
with pretty much anything that squirts ink and doesn't
clog too much.  If you need really big prints, buy
according to your size needs.  If you only make one or
two 16x20's per year, it is better just to use a small
inexpensive printer and outsource your large prints.

My one concern with the R800 is it's strong point - 8
cartridges total in this printer.  Epson's price is
14.24 each - for a total of 113.92 + shipping when you
need to replace them.

Don

p.s. online reviews are only worth what we pay for
them.

--- Joe Davajon <davajon@...> wrote:
> Fellow Photographers,
> Having read a review on the Epson R800 by Alain
> Breat on the Luminous Landscape site, 
>
(www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml),
> I was thrown into a 
> bit of a quandary.  In his review, Breat states that
> the R800 prints glossy with "no bronzing 
> whatsoever".  He writes that the R800 features both
> matte and photoblack cartridges that 
> allow black and white printing with clean untainted
> whites.  Head to head against the 
> Epson 2200, he claims the R800 produces slightly
> more shadow detail and minor 
> increases in color density and saturation.  Now,
> here is what I find so interesting:  He 
> explains that the R800 has replaced light cyan and
> light majenta cartridges with blue and 
> red cartridges.  He says the R800 doesn't have the
> light black cartridge but does have a 
> cartridge called a "gloss optimizer".  It is this
> cartridge which lays down over the whole 
> print a "varnish" that completely does away with
> bronzing.  But what throws me into 
> indecision about buying a 4000 is his statement that
> "My educated guess is that we will 
> soon see the gloss optimizer on larger Epson
> printers such as the 4000, 7600,9600, and 
> the 10,600".  My quandary is this:  Should I lay out
> almost two grand for the present Epson 
> 4000 and shortly after find that Epson has updated
> the 4000 to include a gloss optimizer 
> and replacing two inks with two different inks
> producing a machine that would be 
> significantly superior to the original 4000 and
> making my 4000 worth a lot less and being 
> relegated to dinosaur status and a severe drop in
> value?  I would not be a happy voyager!  I 
> am reminded of when I bought my Canon D60 for around
> two thousand and two weeks 
> later Canon discontinued that camera and replaced it
> with a camera with superior low light 
> focusing and cut the price a full $500!  So the
> bottom line here for those of us lusting 
> after a 4000 is whether to forge ahead and invest in
> the 4000 or hold off until they fill the 
> orders they have and wait until Epson offers an
> upgraded 4000 with all the above goodies?  
> It is just my opinion but what Epson has done with
> the R800 they will probably do with the 
> 4000.  Any thoughts?
> Joe Davajon



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

>anyone doing any fade testing on these yet?

I have not done any fade testing with this printer yet.  However, I believe
the claimed longevity is just slightly better than the 2200 color images.
Unlike the 2200, it will not get better lightfastness with B&W images
because the color pigments are not being replaced by more lightfast carbon.
So, the B&W lightfastness will be closer to the HP with swellable media than
to a B&W pigment printer that uses predominantly carbon for the B&W images
-- either a quad or an UltraChrome printer with a good RIP.

> ... www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml ...
> states that the R800 prints glossy with "no bronzing whatsoever". ...

The initial reviews have been very positive.  

From my perspective, however, I don't see how I'd be able to control the
machine for quads, and I'm not satisfied with color pigment B&Ws, even if
they look good initially.  The lightfastness and differential fading issues
do not appear to have been solved. 

> He explains that the R800 has replaced light cyan and light majenta
>cartridges with blue and red cartridges.

Yes, and this makes the control difficult with RGB curves.

The blue and red pigments might be very interesting.  I'm exploring
non-traditional-inkjet pigments for B&W inksets also.  Since I'm not stuck
with CMY for color, I'm finding potentially better solutions with various
red and blue pigments that are available.   I'm sure Epson is looking at
some of the same factors I've found.  The general pigment field is huge, and
I think I've found and learned enough now to make inksets from the ground up
(so to speak).  I have some initial mixes that I'll be fade testing soon.

>He says the R800 doesn't have the light black cartridge 

And thus does not have the ability to make more lightfast B&W prints.

> but does have a cartridge called a "gloss optimizer".  It is this
>cartridge which lays down over the whole print a "varnish" that completely
>does away with bronzing. 

The gloss optimizer equalizes the acrylic particle covering.  It "fires
blanks" where the pigment load is light.  So, there will not be gloss
differentials, at least to the same degree as the UltraChrome printers. 

I suspect that, although it is more work, the protective and fixative nature
of the post-printing sprays could be a superior solution.  I wonder if the
R800 glossy prints can pass my "wet paper towel" test.

I'm not being critical of Epson's solution here.  It's innovative and will
solve the visual problems for most glossy paper printers.  

I think, however, that the B&W fanatics and purists will be less impressed
than the casual printers.  The bottom line result of the advances in both
the dye and pigment printers will probably be that the consumer B&W market
will be largely taken by the large companies -- no real surprise here.  It
was just a matter of time.  For the real purists a dedicated B&W system or
expensive RIP may still have sufficient advantages that it will be worth the
additional work and/or expense.  Although I'll try to keep the advantages
available to all in entry level machines like the cheap C84.

>... dinosaur status and a severe drop in value ...

There will always be something better next year.  

I'm still in line for a 4000, which will probably end up a dedicated B&W
printer.  

I know the 4000 is less than perfect, but what I'd want is one more, light
gray ink and a driver that could do the range of pure carbon to full color
within a single image.  A color-ink based B&W system isn't on my wish list.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

D. Hill wrote:

>My one concern with the R800 is it's strong point - 8
>cartridges total in this printer.  Epson's price is
>14.24 each - for a total of 113.92 + shipping when you
>need to replace them.

I feel your pain, I just bought 6 color carts and felt bad.  But, it's not 
like it's using more ink just because it has more colors, is it?   i.e. We 
shouldn't have to buy as often?

-Don M

> From: Don M [mailto:don@...]
>
> I feel your pain, I just bought 6 color carts and felt bad.  But,
> it's not
> like it's using more ink just because it has more colors, is it?
>  i.e. We shouldn't have to buy as often?

A printer that uses light inks to avoid graininess in the light areas will
probably use more ink than one that doesn't. Also, a printer that has spot
colors (i.e., red, blue or green) will probably use less ink than one that
doesn't.

On the other hand, the cost of ink has absolutely nothing to do with the
volume of liquid. It's all marketing and distribution, and whatever the
market will bear.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Dear Joe, 

I am an Epson Retail Representative and have watched several 
generations of product roll-outs and terminations. I think you are 
safe buying a 4000 for now.


Disclaimer: Everything below is my opinion. It is not based on any 
inside information (they don't give me much), but rather on my 
observations of how Epson and other  printer companies operate. I 
also don't get any commission for anything you might buy unless you 
come to the store I work in. And of course, it is against company 
policy for me to recommend 3d party inks. I am here because I want to 
do B&W printing in my personal printers useing 3d party inks on my 
own time. 

My thoughts:

First: the marketing and engineering departments don't announce what 
they are going to introduce until shortly before it goes out 
Thankfully, this means no "vaporware". Unfortunately, it gives you 
little guidance in your decision. 

1)The 4000 is a recent introduction so it will stay around at least 
long eonough to pay off the investment in its design and production.

2) The 4000 is still getting rave reviews and demand is strong so 
there is no reason to replace it unless a competitor comes up with a 
better printer in its category.

3) The demand for the R800 is so strong that it is hard to get one at 
the consumer level. Until that demand levels off, there may not be a 
need to come out with another machine with the same capabilities.

4) I think the 1280 is the most likely to get an upgrade as has 
strong competition from Canon's wide carriage dye based printer. 
Guessing, I'd say it would get the engine out of the r300. If it got 
the R800 engine, It would become a serious competitor to the 2200.

5) That leaves the 2200 as a possible candidate, but it is not really 
in the sme class as the 4000. At $700US, it is near the top of the 
mass-market customer's willingness to pay for a printer so the cost 
of adding the R800 engine might cost its position in the market. 

Conclusion:
I think your investment in a 4000 is secure for now. We all know the 
price of computer gear comes down. Anoying as that is, that is why we 
can get such great equipment now. It is also the price of being able 
to afford the even greater stuff that is around the corner. If you 
get into that thought, you will wait forever and forego the pleasure 
of what you can get now.

bmaytum

> On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 02:12, Joe Davajon wrote:
> 
> > Fellow Photographers,
> > My quandary is this:  Should I lay out almost two grand for the 
present Epson 
> > 4000 and shortly after find that Epson has updated the 4000 to 
include a gloss optimizer 
> > and replacing two inks with two different inks producing a 
machine that would be 
> > significantly superior to the original 4000 and making my 4000 
worth a lot less and being 

> > relegated to dinosaur status and a severe drop in value?  
> > Joe Davajon
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- brianmaytum <bmaytum2000@...> wrote:
I am an Epson Retail Representative and have watched
several generations of product roll-outs and
terminations. I think you are safe buying a 4000 for
now......

Brian,
Thanks for your imput.  One question:  Can the drivers
for the 4000 allow black-only printing?
Thanks,
Joe D.

=====
Drop by my site @ <www.davajon.com>