Digital BW, The Print

Is there any difference between the 1280 and 2000P in terms of paper 
transport and head mechanics? Is the 2000P a better printer 
mechanically or is it just a difference in the nozzles and 
electronics?

Martin Wesley

Martin,

Since I have both, I will take a stab at it here.

My honest feeling is that the 1280 is the "dye" version of the 2000P 
from a mechanical standpoint.

The 2000P does appear to have better software to control the paper 
and head transport though. You can actually change a printer 
cartridge that reads dead empty in the middle of a print and never be 
able to detect where the change took place. Also the paper 
registration repeats dead on. At 1440 the 2000P will print with the 
same speed as the 1280 at 2880 (read that as slooooow), but thay may 
be a good thing with pigmented inks. It also cleans the heads more 
often than the 1280.

When you consider the 2000P has 7 picoliter heads and the 1280 has 4, 
it is amazing just how smooth the 2000P is in comparing prints. Yes 
you can look at them under a loupe and the 1280 will look better 
(esp. at 2880), but at a standard viewing distance the 2000P looks 
more like a "traditional" photo to me. This printer did exceptionally 
well with the VM inks, no printer induced "artifacting" that I could 
detect - banding, etc...

The cut and paste quote below is from Ian Lyons Computer Darkroom 
site.

******************************************************************

Here's a commentary on the real world performance of the Photo 2000P 
from someone who actually owns one, i.e.; Carol Steele at Adobe's 
Photoshop User-to-User forum. Carol is an Award Winning Professional 
Photographer, and is well respected by ALL those who participate on 
that forum.

 


Epson Semi Gloss paper
On normal visual inspection, the print appears very similar to the 
print which you supplied done on Epson Glossy paper. Close inspection 
with a fairly high powered lens showed the dot pattern from the Epson 
2000 print to be slightly more defined than the 1270 print - however 
I could see print lines in the 1270 print which were completely 
absent in the 2000 print. Please bear in mind that the magnifying 
lens which I used is also capable of resolving the fine fines which 
make up prints from the Kodak LED20 printer (the Pegasus printer in 
the US).

Epson Archival Matte paper
Again visual inspection put these two prints neck and neck from a 
normal visual inspection. However, because of the grain pattern of 
the paper a very detailed examination with my lens, I couldn't really 
detect a dot pattern in the 2000 print - but in the matte print which 
you supplied, although there was no noticeable dot pattern, I could 
resolve the lines of the print.

Lysonic Smooth Fine Art Watercolour paper
Again because of the grain structure of this type of paper, I could 
detect no dot pattern from the print.

Conclusions
On the whole the printers are very similar and you would not be able 
to tell the difference from a normal visual/close visual inspection. 
Differences only start to appear when examined closely with a high 
powered magnifying lens - and these are only really apparent on the 
glossy type papers. 

Obviously there are pros and cons for each printer, the 1270 is much, 
much faster - so if speed is an issue and quick output is required, 
then the 1270 is the printer of choice. On the other hand, if 
archival permanence is more important than print speed then the 2000P 
is the printer to go for.

Carol 

*******************************************************************

I also have been able to feed the 425gsm Smooth and Textured Epson 
Fine Art Paper (cut down from 24X30 sheets with no trouble - haven't 
tried this on the 1280 yet).

While mechanically as I said they appear to be identical, the 
software makes the 2000P seem to "work" slightly better. The thing 
that interested me from the above quote is the ability to see the 
print lines in a 1270, but not in a 2000P. To me this indicates 
better head and paper transport. Although Jon most likely won't 
release Piezo for the 2000P, this would probably be the best printer 
for use with Piezo ie. no banding, etc...

Don't know if any of this helps. 

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Is there any difference between the 1280 and 2000P in terms of 
paper 

> transport and head mechanics? Is the 2000P a better printer 
> mechanically or is it just a difference in the nozzles and 
> electronics?
> 
> Martin Wesley

Terry,

That exactly answers my questions. I was wondering if the extra $400 
for the 2000P resulted in any quantifiable image improvements.

The lack of a linear pattern or corduroy banding in comparison to the 
1280 would indicate a better transport or transport control. Of 
course it is a bit hard to know for sure since we see so much printer-
to-printer variation within the same model number. There is always 
the possibility that we wind up comparing an exceptionally good 
example of model "A" to a not so good example of model "B".

In looking at the last print exchange under magnification it is 
interesting to note that there are no linear patterns in the images 
printed on the 2000P's, 7000's and 3000's. Most of the desktop 
printers show some linear pattern. I stress that this is only visible 
under magnification. At normal viewing distances I see no linear 
patterns.

This suggests that a larger ink droplet may be better than a smaller 
on in terms of the linear artifacts. Better transports and control 
are a plus as well.

I would be tempted by the 2000P for use with Piezo if it was offered. 
It has seemed strange to me that ConeTech has not offered support for 
any of the printers Epson designed to work with pigment inks.

Thanks for all the info!

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Since I have both, I will take a stab at it here.
> 
> My honest feeling is that the 1280 is the "dye" version of the 
2000P 
> from a mechanical standpoint.
> 
> The 2000P does appear to have better software to control the paper 
> and head transport though. You can actually change a printer 
> cartridge that reads dead empty in the middle of a print and never 
be 
> able to detect where the change took place. Also the paper 
> registration repeats dead on. At 1440 the 2000P will print with the 
> same speed as the 1280 at 2880 (read that as slooooow), but thay 
may 
> be a good thing with pigmented inks. It also cleans the heads more 
> often than the 1280.
> 
> When you consider the 2000P has 7 picoliter heads and the 1280 has 
4, 
> it is amazing just how smooth the 2000P is in comparing prints. Yes 
> you can look at them under a loupe and the 1280 will look better 
> (esp. at 2880), but at a standard viewing distance the 2000P looks 
> more like a "traditional" photo to me. This printer did 
exceptionally 
> well with the VM inks, no printer induced "artifacting" that I 
could 
> detect - banding, etc...
> 
> The cut and paste quote below is from Ian Lyons Computer Darkroom 
> site.
> 
> ******************************************************************
> 
> Here's a commentary on the real world performance of the Photo 
2000P 
> from someone who actually owns one, i.e.; Carol Steele at Adobe's 
> Photoshop User-to-User forum. Carol is an Award Winning 
Professional 
> Photographer, and is well respected by ALL those who participate on 
> that forum.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Epson Semi Gloss paper
> On normal visual inspection, the print appears very similar to the 
> print which you supplied done on Epson Glossy paper. Close 
inspection 
> with a fairly high powered lens showed the dot pattern from the 
Epson 
> 2000 print to be slightly more defined than the 1270 print - 
however 
> I could see print lines in the 1270 print which were completely 
> absent in the 2000 print. Please bear in mind that the magnifying 
> lens which I used is also capable of resolving the fine fines which 
> make up prints from the Kodak LED20 printer (the Pegasus printer in 
> the US).
> 
> Epson Archival Matte paper
> Again visual inspection put these two prints neck and neck from a 
> normal visual inspection. However, because of the grain pattern of 
> the paper a very detailed examination with my lens, I couldn't 
really 
> detect a dot pattern in the 2000 print - but in the matte print 
which 
> you supplied, although there was no noticeable dot pattern, I could 
> resolve the lines of the print.
> 
> Lysonic Smooth Fine Art Watercolour paper
> Again because of the grain structure of this type of paper, I could 
> detect no dot pattern from the print.
> 
> Conclusions
> On the whole the printers are very similar and you would not be 
able 
> to tell the difference from a normal visual/close visual 
inspection. 
> Differences only start to appear when examined closely with a high 
> powered magnifying lens - and these are only really apparent on the 
> glossy type papers. 
> 
> Obviously there are pros and cons for each printer, the 1270 is 
much, 
> much faster - so if speed is an issue and quick output is required, 
> then the 1270 is the printer of choice. On the other hand, if 
> archival permanence is more important than print speed then the 
2000P 
> is the printer to go for.
> 
> Carol 
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 
> I also have been able to feed the 425gsm Smooth and Textured Epson 
> Fine Art Paper (cut down from 24X30 sheets with no trouble - 
haven't 
> tried this on the 1280 yet).
> 
> While mechanically as I said they appear to be identical, the 
> software makes the 2000P seem to "work" slightly better. The thing 
> that interested me from the above quote is the ability to see the 
> print lines in a 1270, but not in a 2000P. To me this indicates 
> better head and paper transport. Although Jon most likely won't 
> release Piezo for the 2000P, this would probably be the best 
printer 

> for use with Piezo ie. no banding, etc...
> 
> Don't know if any of this helps. 
> 
> Terry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Is there any difference between the 1280 and 2000P in terms of 
> paper 
> > transport and head mechanics? Is the 2000P a better printer 
> > mechanically or is it just a difference in the nozzles and 
> > electronics?
> > 
> > Martin Wesley

Terry,

Just to clarify...are you saying that you have used the MIS VM inks with the 
2000P?
If so, how did you do it and with which curves?

Helene 


> When you consider the 2000P has 7 picoliter heads and the 1280 has 4, 
> it is amazing just how smooth the 2000P is in comparing prints. Yes 
> you can look at them under a loupe and the 1280 will look better 
> (esp. at 2880), but at a standard viewing distance the 2000P looks 
> more like a "traditional" photo to me. This printer did exceptionally 
> well with the VM inks, no printer induced "artifacting" that I could 
> detect - banding, etc...
> 




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

Helene,

Yes, that is correct. Paul and I worked on the curves a while back. 
Paul has them, or I can send them.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., grdglass@a... wrote:
> Terry,
> 
> Just to clarify...are you saying that you have used the MIS VM inks 
with the 
> 2000P?
> If so, how did you do it and with which curves?
> 
> Helene 
> 
> 
> > When you consider the 2000P has 7 picoliter heads and the 1280 
has 4, 
> > it is amazing just how smooth the 2000P is in comparing prints. 
Yes 
> > you can look at them under a loupe and the 1280 will look better 
> > (esp. at 2880), but at a standard viewing distance the 2000P 
looks 
> > more like a "traditional" photo to me. This printer did 
exceptionally 
> > well with the VM inks, no printer induced "artifacting" that I 
could 

> > detect - banding, etc...
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Terry,

If you were going to go out and invest in a new printer to use with 
MIS VM which would you buy the 1280 or a 2000P?

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
> Helene,
> 
> Yes, that is correct. Paul and I worked on the curves a while back. 
> Paul has them, or I can send them.
> 
> Terry
> 
(Snip)

Martin,

I never did try the VM with the 1280, so I can't honestly answer. I 
know Paul classified the 2000P curves that we did as "draft", but the 
output was equal to Piezo from my 980 (VM tone difference aside). 
Under a loupe, the 2000P/VM combo was a little smoother, but at a 
normal viewing distance you really couldn't tell them apart. Based 
upon your observations of the 1280 output with VM, the 2000P may do a 
better job - but is it worth the extra $300.00 to you?

I am currently playing with the FS inks and the Piezo driver on the 
1280 - no "greenies" and slightly more neutral. There is a slight 
diffrence in the 60 to 70% range as well as the total black - the FS 
is currently slightly lower by about 4 to 5% but I am still early in 
the process, so they may get closer.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Terry,
> 
> If you were going to go out and invest in a new printer to use with 
> MIS VM which would you buy the 1280 or a 2000P?
> 
> Martin
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" 
<terryr1028@h...> 
> wrote:
> > Helene,
> > 
> > Yes, that is correct. Paul and I worked on the curves a while 
back. 

> > Paul has them, or I can send them.
> > 
> > Terry
> > 
> (Snip)