Digital BW, The Print

I recently posted about upgrading to an 1800 or 2400 from my 220. 
After more reflection I'm not completely sure I'm ready to spend that
much on a printer (and ongoing ink costs).  

Since I'm fairly happy with the B&W results with MIS UTR2 & my 220,
and I don't a pressing need to print larger than 8.5x11, I've thought
of getting another 220 and dedicating it to color with MIS PRO inks. 
However, 220s aren't available anymore.  I see I have the following
choices: 260, 280, 380.  Right now they will pay me to buy a 260 ($60
minus $75 rebate) and the 380 will cost about $35.  

I have a few questions about these printers though:

1. Are they compatible with MIS inks?  They're not listed on the MIS
site, but printer models change frequently...

2. Do these printers have the same problem feeding thick art papers as
the 220 and 800?  (I can use Premier Hot Press 205 on my 220 without a
problem, but that's as thick as it will go without a lot of hassle)

3. What about these Claria inks?  I know they're dye-based, but Epson
claims they are fade resistant and last up to 200 years.  Perhaps I
don't need the MIS inks?

4. Anyone know what the significant differences are between the 260
and 380 are?  The only thing I can see is the 380 has card slots to
print PC free which I could care less about.

I know this is slightly OT as a "color" post, but it pertains to my
overall strategy for printing with B&W as well so I hope it will be
excused!

Chris;

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chriskjezp" 
<chriskresser@...> wrote:
>
 
> However, 220s aren't available anymore. 

You can still find them new on ebay, though they are selling for 
above their original Epson price

> I see I have the following
> choices: 260, 280, 380.  Right now they will pay me to buy a 260 
($60
> minus $75 rebate) and the 380 will cost about $35.

This doesn't sound right, double check the rebate rules again.
  
> 
> I have a few questions about these printers though:
> 
> 1. Are they compatible with MIS inks?  They're not listed on the MIS
> site, but printer models change frequently...

They are probably compatible in that they will probably feed MIS Pro 
ink, but there are no chip resetters or refillable carts yet.
The only way to use them is to buy a CIS, for some reason the auto-
reset chips do work. 

> 
> 2. Do these printers have the same problem feeding thick art papers 
as
> the 220 and 800?  (I can use Premier Hot Press 205 on my 220 
without a
> problem, but that's as thick as it will go without a lot of hassle)
> 

Probably have the same issues with thick papers

> 3. What about these Claria inks?  I know they're dye-based, but 
Epson
> claims they are fade resistant and last up to 200 years.  Perhaps I
> don't need the MIS inks?

I doubt they'll make 200 years of any sort, be it Wilhelm, real 
years, or even dog years. But they are much better: I've had a Claria 
print sitting around my Florida room (bright indirect light) for 7-8 
months with no visible change. Regular dyes would have faded visibly 
and shifted to magenta long ago. And Wilhelm's numbers are quite 
good, so for color printing they might in fact be good enough. Two 
hitches though: 1)dmax on cotton paper sucks, the inks are intended 
for RC paper. 2)PRICE: at 15.00 a cart you'll spend the price of the 
printer on the very first round of inks.


> 
> 4. Anyone know what the significant differences are between the 260
> and 380 are?  The only thing I can see is the 380 has card slots to
> print PC free which I could care less about.

Built in mini-monitor, and a USB hub as well. In the 340 it is all 
USB 1.1, so it's slow.


Steve Karafyllakis

Thanks Paul & Steve for your very helpful replies.  It sounds like the
260 isn't quite a sure thing yet.

I wonder why you'd be able to load thick papers into the 260 but not
the 800?  Isn't the 800 designed for the kind of folks who would use
thicker papers?

It sounds like the 800 might be a better bet for me considering its
lower ink costs, tested "pure carbon" approach and color printing
capabilities on matte paper.  If I swap the PK back in I could also
print on F-type glossies, from what I understand (Innova now has a
285gsm weight of their Ultra Smooth Gloss, and I'm hoping it would
feed into the 800).

Question on the 800, though: would it work with the same profiles as
the 1800?  Many of the paper manufacturers don't list profiles for the
800, but they do for the 1800.

On Sep 2, 2007, at 10:03 AM, chriskjezp wrote:

> I recently posted about upgrading to an 1800 or 2400 from my 220.
> After more reflection I'm not completely sure I'm ready to spend that
> much on a printer (and ongoing ink costs).
>
> Since I'm fairly happy with the B&W results with MIS UTR2 & my 220,
> and I don't a pressing need to print larger than 8.5x11, I've thought
> of getting another 220 and dedicating it to color with MIS PRO inks.
> However, 220s aren't available anymore.

They are available used, Chris, and I'd take a chance on one locally  
available on which I could print samples before buying, but of course  
you'd have to wait for one to turn up and invest time and energy in  
the testing.


>   I see I have the following
> choices: 260, 280, 380.  Right now they will pay me to buy a 260 ($60
> minus $75 rebate) and the 380 will cost about $35.
>
> I have a few questions about these printers though:
>
> 1. Are they compatible with MIS inks?  They're not listed on the MIS
> site, but printer models change frequently...

I don't know and haven't heard.


> 2. Do these printers have the same problem feeding thick art papers as
> the 220 and 800?

Ditto.

> (I can use Premier Hot Press 205 on my 220 without a
> problem, but that's as thick as it will go without a lot of hassle)

> 3. What about these Claria inks?  I know they're dye-based, but Epson
> claims they are fade resistant and last up to 200 years.  Perhaps I
> don't need the MIS inks?

Probably not if you can keep a good digital archive refreshed to  
protect your option to re-print - and keep the Claria prints close to  
you until you are confident they won't make you look bad after you  
circulate them.

What gave me the most pause about the Claria inks when they first  
came out is that they weren't promoted for use on any matte paper,  
which I prefer almost to the exclusion of other paper. But maybe  
someone on the list has since found them to do OK on matte.

Incidentally, Chris, I can't tell whether you know that the Claria  
ink are also available in "Hi Capacity" carts:

<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Landing/HighCapacityInks.jsp? 
BV_UseBVCookie=yes>.


> 4. Anyone know what the significant differences are between the 260
> and 380 are?  The only thing I can see is the 380 has card slots to
> print PC free which I could care less about.

I think both it and the 280 also will print on CDs and DVDs, but I'd  
rather use archival sleeves I've written on by hand. Plus the deal  
currently available on the 260 is hard to pass up.


> I know this is slightly OT as a "color" post, but it pertains to my
> overall strategy for printing with B&W as well so I hope it will be
> excused!

Good luck, Chris; I think it's good you're going into this as  
thoroughly as you are.
--
Sam

Hi Chris,

>... Right now they will pay me to buy a 260 ($60
>minus $75 rebate) and the 380 will cost about $35. 

There is some fine print in the rebates, etc., but they are cheap now, no
question.

>1. Are they compatible with MIS inks? 
>They're not listed on the MIS site, but ...

I have tested 2 260s.  They changed the firmware between the models, and
that wiped out the chip compatibility.  MIS now thinks it has chips that
work in both firmware versions.

The MIS supplier claims the pigments MIS sells as "K4" work in the 260.  MIS
will send me a set for testing.  I have Eboni in the 260 now.  The good news
is that a straight BO with a rip should make a nice entry-level, very
archival printer.  The bad news is that the 1.5 pl drop of the 260 is not as
smooth as that from the 1800.  However, I suspect many will find it's just
fine.  Also, the 3-MK approach that gets rid of the microbanding of the 1800
does not make enough of a net improvement in the 260 to be worth the
trouble.  The BO + color or BO plus UT-R2 midtones is currently my best
guess as to what B&W capable platform will be supported.

As of this moment, however, it's not ready to go -- QTR does not yet support
it, and I have not thoroughly tested the inks.  So far, however, it appears
that MIS pigments are compatible with the 260.

>2. Do these printers have the same problem feeding thick art papers 
>as the 220 and 800? 

I just fed a Premier Art 325 through the 260 several times with no trouble
at all, but that's just one sample.  So, no guarantees.

>3. What about these Claria inks? I know they're dye-based, 
>but Epson claims they are fade resistant and last up to 200 
>years. Perhaps I don't need the MIS inks?

They do sound good.  In the initial color snapshots I've done using the
built in profile for EEM (Premium Presentation Matte) I was not impressed.
The 1800 with MIS color pigs and the built in profile for UltraSmooth prints
a much nicer image on Premier Art Smooth.  It may be that a different paper
or better profiles would make a major difference.

I currently have Eboni in the printer along with the Claria inks.  Given the
positive things I've heard about them I thought it might make a good
combination.  After seeing the snapshots, I'm not so sure I'd bother with
Claria at all, but it's still early.

If MIS k4 pigs run in the 260, they'll be vastly cheaper.  I'm appalled at
how quickly the Epson carts are emptying.  I suspect they ship with the
smaller carts, but I think that strategy is going to come back to haunt
them.  Their customers will find out real fast how much the printers are
really going to cost.  Epson's web page has prices of just under $20 per
cart.

Overall, I think the 260 + MIS pigments or R2 midtone grays may be an
excellent bargain, but it's a bit early to be sure.  Epson is targeting the
scrap booking market with its 1400.  I'm real interested in challenging them
there.  I think a 1400 with MIS pigs and Eboni will do well.  However, from
what I have seen, the 1800 is capable of better printing.

Hope this helps.  Note that everything is still in beta form now.  Whether
MIS can reliably support the 260 is still an open question for me.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Well, this is very tricky.  The 800 seems like a better choice with
the (very large) exception of its trouble feeding thick papers.

The 260 seems promising for color work if the MIS chips do work, but I
wonder where I'd find any color profiles for MIS K4 pigments and the
non-Epson papers I'd like to print on?  Innova, Premier, Crane, etc.
don't ever seem to post profiles for the lower end Epsons... just the
1800, 2400 and up.

>I wonder why you'd be able to load thick papers into the 
>260 but not the 800? 

I don't know.  Maybe they received too much negative publicity on the 800.
Or, maybe it's just a sample difference. Or, maybe they are just learning
how to handle paper feed better -- I hope. 

>... If I swap the PK back in I could also
>print on F-type glossies, from what I understand 
>(Innova now has a 285gsm weight of their Ultra Smooth 
>Gloss, and I'm hoping it would feed into the 800).

I'd bet you'll have a lot of trouble feeding a 285 weight paper into the
800.

I may know by the end of this week if MIS's newest chips are reliable.  I'd
guess that is the most significant question mark right now with respect to
third party ink support for the 260.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul;

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
> They do sound good.  In the initial color snapshots I've done using 
the
> built in profile for EEM (Premium Presentation Matte) I was not 
impressed.
> The 1800 with MIS color pigs and the built in profile for 
UltraSmooth prints
> a much nicer image on Premier Art Smooth.  It may be that a 
different paper
> or better profiles would make a major difference.


I went through a couple carts of the Clarias before fing a 340 again, 
at which point I parked the 260 to await cheaper inks. With a proper 
profile on the Costco glossy, they look very good; it seems they do 
much better on RC paper. 

They are disgustingly expensive, though the real  #78 carts last 
longer than the starter carts. Last night I stumbled across a good 
source for the high-capacity carts (#79) at a better price at 

http://www.costcentral.com/product-
list/Ink_Cartridges/419/Epson/Z00017/

they also have good prices for the 3800 carts.

Steve Karafyllakis

Sheesh... I'm starting to wonder if the 2400 isn't a better idea after
all.  I'd get good "out-of-the-box" results for both B&W printers
without third-party inks, RIPs, custom curves, etc. on both glossy and
matte papers.  All the major fine art paper manufacturers provide ICC
profiles for it (unlike the 220/260) and of course it would permit me
to print larger than 8.5 x 11 if I ever choose to.  It sounds like the
ink costs are actually much less than a 260 or 380 as well, which
really surprises me.  

I just want to make sure I'm not missing an option I haven't
considered.  Here's my understanding so far:

260/380 - uncertain whether they work with MIS inks; OEM inks very
expensive; few available profiles for color printing on third-party papers

800 - doesn't feed thicker papers; requires 3rd party inks for good
b&w results; 

1800 - problems with refurb quality; requires 3rd party inks for good
b&w results;

2400 - not as archival as 800/1800 pure carbon; ink wasted when MK and
PK are swapped

Using 3rd party inks may actually be an advantage for some, since it's
cheaper.  But it also adds a layer of complexity and things that can
go wrong (refilling carts, chip problems, etc.).

Someone over at Photo.net said that swapping the MK and PK cartridges
on the 2400 wastes 1/4 of the total ink in the machine.  Could that be
true?  That's $25 a swap!!!!