Ferlin

I am about to buy a large format printer to make high quality art prints.
Hope it is okay to talk about these products. I'm trying to decide between the Epson 1280 at $400.00 or the Epson Stylus Ph 2200 at $700.00. I would rather buy the cheaper one but I don't know if it is good enough. Anybody have experience with these type printers? I cannot get enough info from my local store and Epson is not specific enough. \:]

Bacardi

Well, I am not an Epson man anymore. I cannot speak for the States of course, but here in Europe, their customer's service is less than zero. Add to this that you need to print VERY regularly if not the ink dries and you can buy new heads. At the printer's they bought a 7800 (can't remember the exact number, but it's for proofing) and aon installing the technician said that it had to be used at least once a week if not the ink would dry in, and thaere was no guarantee if that happened.

I am NOT saying that you should eliminate Epson, only my experience.

They also talk about the archival quality, but most people never read the specific conditions, like no direct sunlight, special glass that stops UV, etc etc.

My alternative (I hold no shares, and, once again: only my opinion!): Canon. I have a "normal" size one and I am more than happy with it. Six inks (I wouldn't go for less if you want to print artwork) in separate cans, sprayheads can be bought separately, I sometimes didn't print for three weeks and never had a drying problem, the ink does not lie as thick on the paper as with HP or Epson, good software that allows for many, many settings, and WISIWIP (what I scan is what I print). This took me three sheets of photo paper.
The large one has exactly the same inkt system as the smaller one, so if I ever have the money for that one, I won't look at another one.

One other thing: whatever you buy: steer clear from cheapo non-brand inks. Ninety-nine times out of one hundered a nuisance, and total loss. Not only of guarantee!

Ferlin

I looked up canon and it looks promising. The 9100 has six individual ink tanks and the 9900 which will be out in May has 8 Chroma plus indivual ink tanks. They don't mention archival. Epson says they
use archival pigment based inks guaranteed to 90 years. But I wouldn't use the printer except on occasion - and I can see weeks going by from use to use. So - possible gum up problems. Hmmmmm...
I have an epson scanner and intuition or perhaps superstition tells me to stick with epson because of connection conflicts. Is there anything to this or is it a baseless fear? Maybe I'll go for the canon. Thanks Erik --

Now ORDER ME WHAT TO BUY...Trouble making decisions - I'm not a rich guy \:]

Welles

I'm glad to hear Erik give such glowing reviews to Canon printers as I have read consistently good reviews of their products. However my printers are old school Epsons and when I upgrade it will probably be to the 7600 for wide format print (24"). I currently limp along with an Epson 3000 now and would never suggest anyone buy one...ever. It was state of the art twelve years ago but now...

As I looked at the two printers you mention, it seems to me that there are several big differences. Six ink vs. seven ink capacities, 48 vs. 96 individual nozzles per jet yielding a maximum resolution of 2880 x 720 vs. 2880 x 1440dpi. For me one of the biggest differences is the fact that the maximum paper thickness of the 1280 is 0.27mm vs. the 2200 which is 1.3mm because of the straight through paper path. That alone is enough to sway me.

What it means is that if you use Epson paper and ink combinations only on light to medium weight paper the 1280 will do fine. If you want to use more artsy papers (and there are some beauties available) go for the 2200.

Now Erik said,
While this is not bad advice as a rule of thumb, my experience differs. On my day to day Epson, I use Ink4Art inks which are about one sixth the cost of regular Epson inks. I've never had a problem in the 4 years I've been using them.

Long ago I tried running an archival ink through my old Epson without using cleaning cartridges first and the jets clogged. I took my printer to the local service center and they restored full function by simply using cleaning cartridges (thus I learned about the difference between pigment and dye based inks). They told me that, although Epson advertised that you void your warranty etc., they privately told their service centers to work on the printers because they should work with any good ink. My gaffe was 'repaired' under warranty even though I told the technician that I was at fault. (Note that this may not be a universal experience.)

When it comes to archival inks, I've tried Generations, Epson, and MIS Supply. I'll stick with MIS supply because I like the gamut and they have continuous flow systems available for most Epsons. This means you are buying ink by the pint or larger and saving big bucks and cartridge hassle. MIS inks are fully pigmented as opposed to 'archival dye' inks. The result is that the gamut is somewhat less than dye based inks but I accommodate this by finishing my image in Photoshop, sending it to my printing computer and opening there in PS to tweak the colors via the Selective Color...option. I always boost the yellow which is the most difficult to create in a pigment ink and sometimes tweak others. It's a bit seat-of-the pants but I'm an artist and that's just fine with me, as long as I get the image I'm after.

Anyway, here's good basic info on the 'archival fetish' from the folks from whom I buy my paper.

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/tech...a-and-ink.html

Here's food for thought... Look at continuous flow systems.

http://www.inksupply.com/

Good Luck! I've spent many thousands of dollars and years learning to get good archival prints.

Ferlin

Wow Welles. Thats alot to think about. I want to print with papers as thin as rice papers and as thick as watercolor paper. Just average thickness watercolor paper but that makes me lean toward the 2200 Epson for those options. Do the pigment based inks look different than regular inks? With my little ink jet printer I have been printing on matte mylar and getting great effects as the ink slowly dries over a period of 2 months or more. I put the prints in a flat file and let them dry and the ink sort of congeals into fuzzy images. I then go back and print maybe one layer or maybe more, depending what part of the image I want to be defined and clear, and with this second printing the ink holds and is in focus. Mylar gives the print a luminosity when you frame it so that it is not touching a backing paper- sort of like a mini light box. These are truly mono prints, one of a kind. Anyway- i am wondering -out loud- if a pigment based ink would react the same way to the Mylar. Thanks [excited]

Welles

Ferlin

Uh-oh... Out of Knowledge Gamut Warning!

I've never printed on mylar nor investigated the possibilities. My printing has only been on canvas an perhaps two dozen or so different types of 'art sheets', purchased primarily from http://www.inkjetmall.com and http://www.mediastreet.com.

I stopped using Mediastreet because their tech support gave me some incorrect information which caused me to buy papers which turned out to not work in my printers. Repeatedly I was told that the extremely thick paper worked just fine in their tests but that assertion was later refuted in no uncertain terms by several experts in Epson printers and modifications to Epson 3000 printers which allows them to print on thicker stock than an unmodified machine. I felt I couldn't count on their advice being sound and so, quit purchasing from them.

Bacardi

Go to a show where they sell the printer, ask for a demonstration and add thet mylar thing, saying you'll decide in two months...when/if it's dry...

I know that very thin paper can be a nuisance, and that most printers fail on thick paper.

suppose I'll try what my printer can do regarding thick and thin...