Digital BW, The Print

I'm about to buy a new printer and am considering the R1800.  In an
ideal world I'd like to use the same printer for B&W and color.  I've
seen rave reviews of the R1800's color output, but have also read that
it isn't great for B&W printing on matte paper.

I've been using a low-end Canon for color printing (unsatisfactory)
and an Epson r220 with MIS inks for B&W (great results, but I'd like
bigger prints).  I came here to do some research and saw a post about
an approach designed by Paul Roark which would allow me to use the
R1800 for B&@ and color without swapping inks.  This would be fantastic.

Could someone explain the approach and/or point me to where I can
learn more about it?

Thanks.

I have since found and read Paul Roark's excellent article describing
the "pure carbon" approach in full detail.

One question remains: if I choose to print color on glossy papers, is
it as simple as replacing the two MK cartridges with the OEM PK and GL
cartridges?  Does swapping cartridges waste a considerable amount of ink?

Start here and then follow the link for detailed instructions:
http://www.inksupply.com/r1800_bo.cfm

I use this method, not so much for the "pure carbon", but because I  
really like the appearance of the prints and the simplicity of the  
workflow.

Carl

> I'm about to buy a new printer and am considering the R1800.  In an
> ideal world I'd like to use the same printer for B&W and color.  I've
> seen rave reviews of the R1800's color output, but have also read that
> it isn't great for B&W printing on matte paper.
>
> I've been using a low-end Canon for color printing (unsatisfactory)
> and an Epson r220 with MIS inks for B&W (great results, but I'd like
> bigger prints).  I came here to do some research and saw a post about
> an approach designed by Paul Roark which would allow me to use the
> R1800 for B&@ and color without swapping inks.  This would be  
> fantastic.
>
> Could someone explain the approach and/or point me to where I can
> learn more about it?
>
> Thanks.

I'm up to speed now on the R1800 approach thanks to Paul and others.

However, I found out I can get an r2400 for $425 after rebate.  I'm
uncertain whether the 1800 or 2400 would be better for my needs.  I
understand that the B&W prints I'd get using the 1800 with Paul's
approach would be more stable over time than the 2400 since they would
have no color in them.  But as an amateur who is not selling prints
and has no plans to, I wonder if I need the "highest standard" of
archival quality.

I guess my question is whether the 2400 has any significant advantages
over the 1800 (when using Paul's approach)?  I've done a lot of
research, and most say the 2400 is better for B&W and printing on
matte papers.  But of course they're not taking the "100% carbon"
approach into consideration.

From what I gather, the 1800 with the 100% carbon approach seems even
better than the 2400 because, 1) it's 100% carbon, 2) I can still get
color glossy prints that match or surpass the 2400, 3) I can get matte
B&W prints that match the 2400 (except in smoothness?), 4) the printer
(and ink?) are cheaper.

I'm not sure about that last point, though, since I'd have to buy $30
of K ink cartridges and the $50 QTR to use the 100% carbon approach,
so that makes the 1800 about the same cost as the 2400.  If anyone has
any feedback on which would be better for my needs I'd be grateful.

Thanks again.

On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, chriskjezp wrote:

> I'm up to speed now on the R1800 approach thanks to Paul and others.
>
> However, I found out I can get an r2400 for $425 after rebate.  I'm
> uncertain whether the 1800 or 2400 would be better for my needs.  I
> understand that the B&W prints I'd get using the 1800 with Paul's
> approach would be more stable over time than the 2400 since they would
> have no color in them.  But as an amateur who is not selling prints
> and has no plans to, I wonder if I need the "highest standard" of
> archival quality. [snip]

Possibly for old B&W family photos which you scan and re-print,  
Chris? But even then the fraction of those which are sepia might re- 
print to better effect on the 2400? Many old family photos I see  
resemble a sepia print more than a B&W print if only, I believe,  
because they've faded to a very warm appearance. Nevertheless, I tend  
to re-print them that way because I think of myself as trying to  
preserve them as they are rather than trying to re-create them as  
they probably were.

My guess is that this is not relevant to your printing, Chris, at  
least not yet. But then your current B&W prints of photos of yourself  
and your family and friends might someday, if they survive, be old  
family photos. You could try to protect your option to print them  
archivally, however, by preserving your scans or digital-camera files  
for possible re-printing later to "... the highest standard of  
archival quality". That is essentially what I'm doing - I have a 2400  
but not an 1800. I'm very tempted to add an 1800 to the 2400, but I  
guess I can postpone doing that until Epson discontinues the 1800,  
possibly in favor of a newer printer even better for my purposes.


> [snip] ... If anyone has any feedback on which would be better for  
> my needs I'd be grateful.

I guess what this boils down to is a suggestion that the 2400 would  
probably be better for you, at least for the time being.
--
Sam

> 
> I guess what this boils down to is a suggestion that the 2400 would  
> probably be better for you, at least for the time being.
> --
> Sam
>

Sam,

Thanks a lot for your reply.  I guess one question I forgot to ask is
whether there's a significant difference in the ongoing cost to run
each printer, i.e. does the 2400 "eat" more ink than the 1800?  As far
as I can tell the cartridges cost exactly the same amount.

Also, having just read Clayton's post in which he explains why he's
sticking with the 2400 for now, he mentions clogging, leaking poppet
valves (??), resetting chips, refilling carts and the extra software
layer (QTR) as disadvantages (for him, at least) to the 1800 workflow.

I assume the clogging, leaking poppet valves, resetting chips and
refilling carts refer to the possible issues that arise using MIS bulk
inks and carts?  Or is the clogging specific to the smaller 1.5
picoliter size of the 1800?

Thanks,
Chris

> That's an excellent price if it's new.  The refurbished R1800s are about
> $350 from Epson and $330 on E-Bay (Epson-refurb).

Nah, it's not new.  Refurbished from Epson.  After doing a bit more
research here, I've learned that you've had bad experiences buying
refurbed Epson printers.  That surprises me because I've always been
under the impression that refurbed products get MORE testing than new
products.

Considering your experience, would you still buy a refurb?


> The 260 I have does print a single jet smoother than the
> 1800, but the reduced microbanding may simply be a result of increased
> roughness, which is not a good trade for those who want the smoothest
> multi-channel carbon printing.
> 

Since I already have the 220 with MIS inks, I think I definitely want
to give either the R800, R1800 or R2400 a try. In fact, I'm pretty
happy with the results from my 220 and the main reason driving this
new purchase is the desire for better color prints. 

Although I don't currently make many prints bigger than 8x10, I think
it may be worth the extra $100 to reserve that option.  Having said
that, Epson lists refurbed R800s for $140 on their website (not in
stock currently).  To me that sounds like the ultimate low-cost
archival option for someone who wants to print B&W and color on 8.5 x
11 matte papers.

Thanks,
Chris

For the benefit of anyone else who may be facing the same decision,
here's how the current cost difference breaks down between the R1800 &
R2400:

Refurbished R2400 = $500
minus rebate      - $ 75
-------------------------
Total R2400       = $425


Refurbished R1800 = $350
minus rebate      - $ 75
plus MIS MK ink   + $ 30
plus QTR          + $ 50
------------------------
Total R1800       = $355

Cost of new ink cartridges for both printers seem to be equivalent
(though I'm not sure yet about ink usage).  For me this means I'll be
choosing almost entirely based upon subjective considerations.  

The R1800 (with the 100% carbon approach) offers the highest standard
in archival B&W on matte papers, as well as great color prints on
matte papers (with Paul's approach) and glossy papers (using Epson
inks).  The potential downsides are those that Clayton mentioned:
clogging, refilling and rechipping carts and an extra layer of
complexity (QTR).

The R2400 offers archival quality probably sufficient for most
people's needs (I realize that is highly subjective), a streamlined
and intuitive B&W workflow, excellent color and B&W results with both
glossy and matte papers (though you have to swap) with no additional
software, custom curves, tweaking, etc.  However, most people say that
color glossy results are better on the R1800.

Their dimensions and weight are almost exactly the same, and their are
custom paper profiles widely available for both.

Tough choice!

Hi Chris,

>I'm up to speed now on the R1800 approach thanks to Paul and others.

>However, I found out I can get an r2400 for $425 after rebate.

That's an excellent price if it's new.  The refurbished R1800s are about
$350 from Epson and $330 on E-Bay (Epson-refurb).

As you say, you're essentially up to speed on the differences.  They are
both very good printers.  It's probably a subjective decision at this point.

By the way, I'm experimenting with the R260.  Nothing is ready to go yet,
but in general, all the approaches I've used with it fail to meet the
quality of the R1800 with respect to 100% Eboni printing.  I think one does,
indeed, get a better printer when the higher prices are paid.  On the other
hand, a straight Eboni BO with a driver that can do it looks like it'll be a
good entry level bargain for those who do want the most archival B&W at the
lowest price.  The 260 I have does print a single jet smoother than the
1800, but the reduced microbanding may simply be a result of increased
roughness, which is not a good trade for those who want the smoothest
multi-channel carbon printing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

>...
>Also, having just read Clayton's post in which he explains 
>why he's sticking with the 2400 for now, he mentions clogging,

I've had both and find no 2400 advantage here.

> leaking poppet valves (??),

MIS uses the same carts for both.

> resetting chips, refilling carts 

Same if you use MIS.  The difference may be Epson OEM v. MIS.  There, of
course, one is looking at a major price difference.

>and the extra software layer (QTR) as disadvantages (for him, at least)

All else being equal, I'd like to print from Photoshop with a standard
driver also.  The Epson driver is also faster.  But QTR gives me the
controls I need to get the results I like -- on lots of different printers.
So, I'm a major fan of QTR.  I think it is easy to learn and worth learning
for those who like to get involved at that level -- which is definitely not
everyone.

>I assume the clogging, leaking poppet valves, resetting chips
>and refilling carts refer to the possible issues that arise 
>using MIS bulk inks and carts? 

I think it must be. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Chris

If color on gloss papers is important to you then go with the R2400.  
The R1800 does produce better glossy color prints on the relevant Epson 
papers with its full Epson inkset, however I suspect that changing 
between the MIS Eboni and the Epson inks will not be as straightforward 
as changing cartridges and will undoubtedly use a considerable quantity 
of ink.

David Whistance

PS - I've used an R800 with the Cone K7 inkset for some time.  I have 
only changed back to Epson once and wish I had used some fushing 
cartridges.

Paul Roark said -- "the R800 may have more feeding problems than the
 1800.  At least one 800 I know of refuses to take thicker papers at 
all".  

I couldn't agree more - my R800 dislikes "Art Papers" in general and 
struggles with even Photo Rag 188.  It has occasionally taken thicker 
papers very begrudgingly but it is so difficult, and prone to tearing 
the paper, that it isn't something I want to try often!

David Whistance

"Tought Choice"

....as I read it:  a refub 2400 is $509.15 AFTER Epson rebate...NOT  
$425.00.

terry


On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:53 PM, chriskjezp wrote:

> For the benefit of anyone else who may be facing the same decision,
> here's how the current cost difference breaks down between the R1800 &
> R2400:
>
> Refurbished R2400 = $500
> minus rebate - $ 75
> -------------------------
> Total R2400 = $425
>
> Refurbished R1800 = $350
> minus rebate - $ 75
> plus MIS MK ink + $ 30
> plus QTR + $ 50
> ------------------------
> Total R1800 = $355
>
> Cost of new ink cartridges for both printers seem to be equivalent
> (though I'm not sure yet about ink usage). For me this means I'll be
> choosing almost entirely based upon subjective considerations.
>
> The R1800 (with the 100% carbon approach) offers the highest standard
> in archival B&W on matte papers, as well as great color prints on
> matte papers (with Paul's approach) and glossy papers (using Epson
> inks). The potential downsides are those that Clayton mentioned:
> clogging, refilling and rechipping carts and an extra layer of
> complexity (QTR).
>
> The R2400 offers archival quality probably sufficient for most
> people's needs (I realize that is highly subjective), a streamlined
> and intuitive B&W workflow, excellent color and B&W results with both
> glossy and matte papers (though you have to swap) with no additional
> software, custom curves, tweaking, etc. However, most people say that
> color glossy results are better on the R1800.
>
> Their dimensions and weight are almost exactly the same, and their are
> custom paper profiles widely available for both.
>
> Tough choice!
>
>
> 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, terry lindquist
<tsll@...> wrote:
>
> "Tought Choice"
> 
> ....as I read it:  a refub 2400 is $509.15 AFTER Epson rebate...NOT  
> $425.00.
> 
> terry

Terry,

The rebate you refer to is a 15% instant rebate.  Epson is offering a
$75 mail-in rebate for the new R2400.  From what I understand, they
honor this rebate for refurbished products (as long as they have a UPC
bar code).  I'm not certain, but some folks over at Photo.net have
received their checks.

Chris

Hi Chris,

>... you've had bad experiences buying refurbed Epson printers.

Yes, but in general I'd still do it.  Epson took the bad one back.  In fact,
they let me upgrade from the R800 (which worked well enough to test) to the
R1800 I'm now using.  It was clogged when it arrived and had clearly been
used.  But the clogs cleared just by putting cleaning fluid in the bad ones
for a while.  (They'll ship the first one with OEM inks. And those could be
used to be sure the nozzles are clear.)  It's worked fine so far.

> That surprises me because I've always been
> under the impression that refurbed products get 
> MORE testing than new products.

I'd heard that too.  Both of the issues I had might have resulted from
shipping.  The 800 could have been an electronic problem that was
intermittent.  The 1800 had been used, so it could have been the Epson OEM
inks in it that clogged slightly in shipping.

>Considering your experience, would you still buy a refurb?

Yes, and I might get another one if the 1800 gets cancelled.  (See my
previous 260 note.)

>... Epson lists refurbed R800s for $140 on their website 
>(not in stock currently). To me that sounds like the ultimate 
>low-cost archival option for someone who wants to print B&W 
>and color on 8.5 x 11 matte papers.

On thin papers perhaps -- the R800 may have more feeding problems than the
1800.  At least one 800 I know of refuses to take thicker papers at all.
I'm feeding Premier Art 325 (one sheet at a time with very slight assist)
regularly into the 1800.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> If color on gloss papers is important to you then go with the R2400.  
> The R1800 does produce better glossy color prints on the relevant Epson 
> papers with its full Epson inkset, however I suspect that changing 
> between the MIS Eboni and the Epson inks will not be as straightforward 
> as changing cartridges and will undoubtedly use a considerable quantity 
> of ink.
> 

David,

So you're saying that swapping the MIS MK and Epson PK in the 1800
would likely cause more problems and waste more ink than swapping the
MIS MK and MIS PK (assuming I use K4 inks) in the 2400?

I guess one other advantage of the 1800 that I forgot to mention is
that it uses less ink for B&W prints, and since no color is used I
assume the cartridges would last longer overall than the 2400.

Chris

I was really thinking of clearing the Glop channel of the Eboni which I
suspect would use lots of Glop!  Whether the inks are Epson or MIS will have
little impact on this.

David

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of chriskjezp
  Sent: 30 August 2007 20:21
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800 "pure carbon" approach?



  > If color on gloss papers is important to you then go with the R2400.
  > The R1800 does produce better glossy color prints on the relevant Epson
  > papers with its full Epson inkset, however I suspect that changing
  > between the MIS Eboni and the Epson inks will not be as straightforward
  > as changing cartridges and will undoubtedly use a considerable quantity
  > of ink.
  >

  David,

  So you're saying that swapping the MIS MK and Epson PK in the 1800
  would likely cause more problems and waste more ink than swapping the
  MIS MK and MIS PK (assuming I use K4 inks) in the 2400?

  I guess one other advantage of the 1800 that I forgot to mention is
  that it uses less ink for B&W prints, and since no color is used I
  assume the cartridges would last longer overall than the 2400.



  


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

These are tiny carts with low volume and no lines to clear, as with  
larger format printers.  My experience has been that you simply  
switch carts and go.  The printer will automatically run a clean  
cycle when you change carts and that is usually sufficient to clear  
the print head.

On Aug 30, 2007, at 3:32 PM, David Whistance wrote:

> Chris
>
> I was really thinking of clearing the Glop channel of the Eboni  
> which I
> suspect would use lots of Glop!  Whether the inks are Epson or MIS  
> will have
> little impact on this.
>
> David
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of  
> chriskjezp
>   Sent: 30 August 2007 20:21
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800 "pure carbon" approach?
>
>
>
>> If color on gloss papers is important to you then go with the R2400.
>> The R1800 does produce better glossy color prints on the relevant  
>> Epson
>> papers with its full Epson inkset, however I suspect that changing
>> between the MIS Eboni and the Epson inks will not be as  
>> straightforward
>> as changing cartridges and will undoubtedly use a considerable  
>> quantity
>> of ink.
>>
>
>   David,
>
>   So you're saying that swapping the MIS MK and Epson PK in the 1800
>   would likely cause more problems and waste more ink than swapping  
> the
>   MIS MK and MIS PK (assuming I use K4 inks) in the 2400?
>
>   I guess one other advantage of the 1800 that I forgot to mention is
>   that it uses less ink for B&W prints, and since no color is used I
>   assume the cartridges would last longer overall than the 2400.

> Chris:

Thank you for the info....I will now see if I, too, can collect....


...anyway...

terry
>
>
>




> Terry,
>
> The rebate you refer to is a 15% instant rebate. Epson is offering a
> $75 mail-in rebate for the new R2400. From what I understand, they
> honor this rebate for refurbished products (as long as they have a UPC
> bar code). I'm not certain, but some folks over at Photo.net have
> received their checks.
>
> Chris
>
>
> 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> I was really thinking of clearing the Glop channel of the Eboni which
I
> suspect would use lots of Glop!  Whether the inks are Epson or MIS
will have
> little impact on this.
>
> David
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
chriskjezp
>   Sent: 30 August 2007 20:21
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800 "pure carbon" approach?
>
>
>
>   > If color on gloss papers is important to you then go with the
R2400.
>   > The R1800 does produce better glossy color prints on the relevant
Epson
>   > papers with its full Epson inkset, however I suspect that changing
>   > between the MIS Eboni and the Epson inks will not be as
straightforward
>   > as changing cartridges and will undoubtedly use a considerable
quantity
>   > of ink.
>   >
>
>   David,
>
>   So you're saying that swapping the MIS MK and Epson PK in the 1800
>   would likely cause more problems and waste more ink than swapping
the

>   MIS MK and MIS PK (assuming I use K4 inks) in the 2400?
>
>   I guess one other advantage of the 1800 that I forgot to mention is
>   that it uses less ink for B&W prints, and since no color is used I
>   assume the cartridges would last longer overall than the 2400.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Wouldn't an alternative be to use one of the F-type glossy or semi-matte papers for color,so 
avoiding the need to switch an MK channel back over to Glop?  Is it straight-forward to turn 
off the Glop channel when printing with these papers on the R1800?

Sorry for the previous garbled message. So much for the Yahoo rich-text editor.


David Whistance wrote (with respect to converting a 3MK setup back to color printing):

> Chris> I was really thinking of clearing the Glop channel of the Eboni which I
> suspect would use lots of Glop!  Whether the inks are Epson or MIS will have
> little impact on this.

>  Wouldn't an alternative be to use one of the F-type glossy or
semi-matte papers for color,so 
> avoiding the need to switch an MK channel back over to Glop?  Is it
straight-forward to turn 
> off the Glop channel when printing with these papers on the R1800?

Which are the F-type glossy or semi-matte papers?  Who makes them?  

Sorry, I've been away from the forum for a year and I'm a bit out of
touch.

Thanks,
Chris

On Aug 30, 2007, at 2:05 PM, jimcongleton wrote:

>  Wouldn't an alternative be to use one of the F-type glossy or semi- 
> matte papers for color,so
> avoiding the need to switch an MK channel back over to Glop?  Is it  
> straight-forward to turn
> off the Glop channel when printing with these papers on the R1800?
>
> Sorry for the previous garbled message. So much for the Yahoo rich- 
> text editor.
>
>
> David Whistance wrote (with respect to converting a 3MK setup back  
> to color printing):
>> Chris> I was really thinking of clearing the Glop channel of the  
>> Eboni which I
>> suspect would use lots of Glop!  Whether the inks are Epson or MIS  
>> will have
>> little impact on this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<list@...> wrote:
>
> These are tiny carts with low volume and no lines to clear, as with  
> larger format printers.  My experience has been that you simply  
> switch carts and go.  The printer will automatically run a clean  
> cycle when you change carts and that is usually sufficient to clear  
> the print head.
> 

I'm very relieved to hear this, and I think it seals the deal for me
on the R1800.  If I can get high quality B&W and color prints using
Paul's workflow on matte papers, and incredible color prints on glossy
papers using the Epson or MIS PK/GL cartridges without significant ink
loss, I'd be very happy.  I guess the only thing I give up is B&W on
glossy papers - but I rarely, if ever, use glossy papers for B&W.

Chris

>Wouldn't an alternative be to use one of the F-type glossy or 
>semi-matte papers for color, so avoiding the need to switch 
>an MK channel back over to Glop? 

>Is it straight-forward to turn off the Glop channel when 
>printing with these papers on the R1800?

It is easy to turn off the Glop.  But Eboni will not stick on glossy paper.

I just tried the 1800 with a color snapshot on Crane Silver Rag.  It looks
good, but I can smudge the black by rubbing a finger across it.

I also have the 260 loaded with OEM color and Eboni.  They seem to print
nicely together, but the 260 OEM color on Ultra Premium Presentation Matte
is not what I'd call good color.  The MIS color in the 1800 with an EEM
profile looks significantly better.  (The supplier claims MIS K4 pigments
are compatible with the 260, but I have not tested a set yet.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,
Yes, I was just suggesting that printing on F-type paper would eliminate the bother of 
switching out one MK for Glop (and avoid any concerns about flushing out the MK); would 
still have to swap PK in for MK, not such a chore.

Chris,
re your question about "F-type" papers, try searches here for Innova F-type (there are 
several surfaces available), Crane Silver Rag, and Hahnemuhle Pearl. These new papers 
have coating formulations that produce high D-maxs (2.2-2.7 range). Their merits (and 
short-comings) have been extensively discussed on the forum.  

 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:

>
> 
> >Wouldn't an alternative be to use one of the F-type glossy or 
> >semi-matte papers for color, so avoiding the need to switch 
> >an MK channel back over to Glop? 
> 
> >Is it straight-forward to turn off the Glop channel when 
> >printing with these papers on the R1800?
> 
> It is easy to turn off the Glop.  But Eboni will not stick on glossy paper.
> 
> I just tried the 1800 with a color snapshot on Crane Silver Rag.  It looks
> good, but I can smudge the black by rubbing a finger across it.

I think I've mentioned this before, but it's been a while.... I've 
owned (briefly) or tested 2 new R1800s and two "refurbs". ALL 4 
banded in at least 3 channels, and I've read complaints ad nauseaum 
on other forums about this problem. My opinion (confirmed by the 
packaging and handling of the last "refurb" I received) is that there 
are so many of these being returned, that they are simply being 
repackaged and sent out the door again. I don't think its even  Epson 
that's doing the actual re-packaging, I think they've hired a third 
party. In other words, 'refurbishing' as we knew is no longer a 
reality, at least for this printer. Too bad, it has so much 
potential. In fact, I like the printer enough that I'm paying an 
authorized Epson service shop to overhaul it top-to-bottom, including 
a new head. I should have it back in a couple weeks, I'll post on the 
subject again at that time.

Steve Karafyllakis



.  It was clogged when it arrived and had clearly been

> used.  

> > That surprises me because I've always been
> > under the impression that refurbed products get 
> > MORE testing than new products.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
>
> I think I've mentioned this before, but it's been a while.... I've 
> owned (briefly) or tested 2 new R1800s and two "refurbs". ALL 4 
> banded in at least 3 channels, and I've read complaints ad nauseaum 
> on other forums about this problem. 

Wow.  This is not at all encouraging me to buy a refurbed R1800.  

Is the Epson service center overhauling your printer at no charge? 
How did you find them?

I've been using the printer for almost a year anyway; I managed to hide 
the banding (mostly) by putting the LK in the gloss channel which was 
banding-free. the MK was also clean, and the PK and red (used for LLK)
were reasonable, so that's where all my carbon inks are. The toners get 
used sparingly enough that they don't show. 

And no, the Epson center is not doing it free, it will cost me $329 
plus shipping both ways. This is more espensive than a refurb, and if 
it turns out to be a waste of money I will be quite upset.

Honestly, Chris, I think reviewing what you've said your needs and 
interests are, you're better off with a 2400, they are better machines 
from the start. As for the longevity issue, Wilhelm gives K3 ABW 
printing well over 100 years, depending on the paper. And ABW is SO 
much easier, and works well enough that you need to ask yourself: what 
do I want to do, take and print photos, or mess with the equipment.

Steve Karafyllakis



-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chriskjezp" 
<chriskresser@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
> Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@> wrote:
> >
> > I think I've mentioned this before, but it's been a while.... I've 
> > owned (briefly) or tested 2 new R1800s and two "refurbs". ALL 4 
> > banded in at least 3 channels, and I've read complaints ad nauseaum 
> > on other forums about this problem. 
> 
> Wow.  This is not at all encouraging me to buy a refurbed R1800.  
> 
> Is the Epson service center overhauling your printer at no charge? 
> How did you find them?
>

Paul, I haven't done true BO in so long I honestly don't remember if 
any single channel was banding free. I was always more interested in 
a full range printer - matte, gloss, & neutral to sepia out of one 
machine. This one has served well enough, as long as I don't look too 
hard with that 10X lupe

Steve Karafyllakis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Steve,
> 
>  
> 
> Did you end up getting an 1800 that does not band at all even with 
only one
> channel printing?
> 
>  
> 
> I only have experience with the one 1800.  It cannot print a one-
channel
> print without microbanding, but I assumed that was due to the tiny 
dot.
> That is why I use 3 channels for the 100% Eboni workflow.  In the 
color
> images I've printed, I do not see any microbanding. 
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Steven
> Karafyllakis
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:13 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800 "pure carbon" approach?
> 
>  
> 
> I think I've mentioned this before, but it's been a while.... I've 
> owned (briefly) or tested 2 new R1800s and two "refurbs". ALL 4 
> banded in at least 3 channels, and I've read complaints ad nauseaum 
> on other forums about this problem. My opinion (confirmed by the 
> packaging and handling of the last "refurb" I received) is that 
there 
> are so many of these being returned, that they are simply being 
> repackaged and sent out the door again. I don't think its even 
Epson 
> that's doing the actual re-packaging, I think they've hired a third 
> party. In other words, 'refurbishing' as we knew is no longer a 
> reality, at least for this printer. Too bad, it has so much 
> potential. In fact, I like the printer enough that I'm paying an 
> authorized Epson service shop to overhaul it top-to-bottom, 
including 
> a new head. I should have it back in a couple weeks, I'll post on 
the 

> subject again at that time.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> . It was clogged when it arrived and had clearly been
> > used. 
> 
> > > That surprises me because I've always been
> > > under the impression that refurbed products get 
> > > MORE testing than new products.
> > 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Steve,

 

Did you end up getting an 1800 that does not band at all even with only one
channel printing?

 

I only have experience with the one 1800.  It cannot print a one-channel
print without microbanding, but I assumed that was due to the tiny dot.
That is why I use 3 channels for the 100% Eboni workflow.  In the color
images I've printed, I do not see any microbanding. 

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven
Karafyllakis
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: R1800 "pure carbon" approach?

 

I think I've mentioned this before, but it's been a while.... I've 
owned (briefly) or tested 2 new R1800s and two "refurbs". ALL 4 
banded in at least 3 channels, and I've read complaints ad nauseaum 
on other forums about this problem. My opinion (confirmed by the 
packaging and handling of the last "refurb" I received) is that there 
are so many of these being returned, that they are simply being 
repackaged and sent out the door again. I don't think its even Epson 
that's doing the actual re-packaging, I think they've hired a third 
party. In other words, 'refurbishing' as we knew is no longer a 
reality, at least for this printer. Too bad, it has so much 
potential. In fact, I like the printer enough that I'm paying an 
authorized Epson service shop to overhaul it top-to-bottom, including 
a new head. I should have it back in a couple weeks, I'll post on the 
subject again at that time.

Steve Karafyllakis

. It was clogged when it arrived and had clearly been
> used. 

> > That surprises me because I've always been
> > under the impression that refurbed products get 
> > MORE testing than new products.
> 

 



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

> Honestly, Chris, I think reviewing what you've said your needs and 
> interests are, you're better off with a 2400, they are better machines 
> from the start. As for the longevity issue, Wilhelm gives K3 ABW 
> printing well over 100 years, depending on the paper. And ABW is SO 
> much easier, and works well enough that you need to ask yourself: what 
> do I want to do, take and print photos, or mess with the equipment.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 

Steve,

Thanks for your suggestion.  I keep going back and forth on this, but
certainly based on what you've said the 2400 does sound more
appealing.  I definitely do not want to spend all of my time messing
with defective equipment, and frankly I'm not sure I have the
expertise to even diagnose some of the problems being reported here. 
Of course that might also mean that I won't even notice them, but
obviously something like clogging would be hard to miss.

When it comes down to it, if I include the cost of 3 MK ink cartridges
and QTR, there's only a $75 price difference between an 2400 and 1800.