Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

What would you suggest between the following choices?

1) Epson 3000 with PieozoICC (have an opportunity to get one already 
set up for a decent price)

2) Epson 1280 with MIS carts (have a 1280 lying around, and 
cartridges are an inexpensive way to start)

3) Epson 2200 - I have one already, use it with PK for color right 
now, but thinking of using it for B&W with MK. 

Yes, I did a search, but could not really make sense of the quality 
difference between a 3000/1280/2200. Does the 1280 (or 2200) make 
B&W prints that are noticably better than the 3000?

I understand that the 1280 or 2200 with PiezoICC would probably be 
awesome, but that would be a lot more than I have in my budget. My 
(financially based) preference is to sell the 2200 and buy the 3000, 
but not sure if the 3000 can deliver the quality I want (without a 
RIP). The reason the 3000 is better financially is of course the big 
cartridges. 

thanks all,
  Manoj

>What would you suggest between the following choices?

>1) Epson 3000 with PieozoICC (have an opportunity to get one 
>already set up for a decent price)

This printer should only be on the list if you need 16 x 20 print size.
It's an old printer with a relatively huge dot and poor paper feed.

But, it costs a lot less than other printers that can make good 16 x 20's.

>2) Epson 1280 with MIS carts (have a 1280 lying around, and 
>cartridges are an inexpensive way to start)

If you have one lying around, this is a good option.

>3) Epson 2200 - I have one already, use it with PK for color right 
>now, but thinking of using it for B&W with MK. 

This is the best printer.  

If you like glossy prints with no digital artifacts, the ink load adjustment
allows really good Epson Glossy Photo paper (cheap as Costco) prints that
need to spraying to look good.  This is, of course, with the MIS UT7 inkset.

> Does the 1280 (or 2200) make 
>B&W prints that are noticably better than the 3000?

Yes.

Good luck.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Manoj-

You can get spectacular prints from any of the three printers.  I have
both a 3000 and a 2200 and for many/most images you would be hard
pressed to see the difference; for others the difference is obvious. 
Some things to consider are:

(1) The Dmax will be higher with the 2200 and ultrachrome inks than
with the 3000
(2) the ink costs for the 1280 can be reduced by using one of the
continuous flow systems and bulk bottles of ink
(3) I was not able to get satisfactory results from the Cone ICC
system on the 3000.  They offered to create custom profiles but I
choose to use Ink Jet control and Open print Maker instead (which
produces outstanding results for)
(4) The 2200 will allow you to use heavier papers ( > 200 gsm ) and
use glossy papers (with the UC inks)
(5) If you want to print 16x20 then the 3000 can do that for you


Good luck

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> What would you suggest between the following choices?
> 
> 1) Epson 3000 with PieozoICC (have an opportunity to get one already 
> set up for a decent price)
> 
> 2) Epson 1280 with MIS carts (have a 1280 lying around, and 
> cartridges are an inexpensive way to start)
> 
> 3) Epson 2200 - I have one already, use it with PK for color right 
> now, but thinking of using it for B&W with MK. 
> 
> Yes, I did a search, but could not really make sense of the quality 
> difference between a 3000/1280/2200. Does the 1280 (or 2200) make 
> B&W prints that are noticably better than the 3000?
> 
> I understand that the 1280 or 2200 with PiezoICC would probably be 
> awesome, but that would be a lot more than I have in my budget. My 
> (financially based) preference is to sell the 2200 and buy the 3000, 
> but not sure if the 3000 can deliver the quality I want (without a 
> RIP). The reason the 3000 is better financially is of course the big 
> cartridges. 
> 
> thanks all,
>   Manoj

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jimpatel63"
<jimpatel63@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What would you suggest between the following choices?
>
> 1) Epson 3000 with PieozoICC (have an opportunity to get one already
> set up for a decent price)

3000s have had erratic performance with these (IMHO) great inks. Some
have been problem free, some including me have had no success at all.
No one can quite put their finger on it since 3000s can probably pass
maple syrup. Someone else here posted that IJM said the 3000 was the
least successful printer with the new inks. But the icc system works
very well, and the inks are great if you get lucky with the particular
3000. The problem is, how can you determine that in advance of
committing? The system that is already set up, can you find out if it
has been problem free?
The B&W 3000 quality is superb as long as you stick to a quad
approach. This means, if the PTones don't work out, you need to
investigate the MIS quad options or BWguys. I've seen no posts
complaining of MIS quad 3000 problems, but you will then need either
QTR, IJC, or some really good RGB curves to take maximum advantage of
a quad approach.
Lastly, unless you are doubly lucky, you're best sticking to papers
around 250gsm and below. The 3000 has problematic paper advance with
thick papers, which will quickly result in banding with quads, and
inaccurate image size on the paper.
With no lengthy experience other an seeing people's prints I can
comment on options, reliability, etc. with the other two printers.
I've seen great and not so great prints.

snip

> Yes, I did a search, but could not really make sense of the quality
> difference between a 3000/1280/2200. Does the 1280 (or 2200) make
> B&W prints that are noticably better than the 3000?

As long as your are using a quality quad system with the 3000, the
answer is no. There are trade-offs, one might have smaller dots, the
other might have higher Dmax, neither of which may be visible to the
eye. You also have to compare software and method, not just printer
model, it's possible to make good or bad prints with all of them
depending on the ink, paper, and method (software/driver/etc..).
I just had about 50 prints of the same size all up with each other.
There were good 3000 quads mixed in with good 9600 quads. The 9600
with StudioPrint finely tuned bla bla makes the best quads I've ever
seen. Without a loupe it's nearly impossible to pick out the 3000
prints. It's very very good with quads.
If you can make sure the 3000 already has no problems consistently
working well with PTones, and you are happy with a single hue approach
and one of the Ptone ink sets. OR- you are willing to move to MIS
quads and explore other driver methods, AND- you are content with
250gsm papers and thinner-
I'd opt for the 3000 in a heartbeat.

Tyler

Thanks for the great information folks. Awesome group!

Of course, I am no closer to a decision - some of the opinions 
conflicted, but at least I have better information to deal with :-).

Manoj