epson 2400 question

I posted a week ago to inquire about a quality printer to buy

for my small, but growing photo business. I had (have) been using

the Canon i9900 and was having growing concern over the archival

factor and the quality of my black and white prints. I took my

helpful tips and researched the 2200, 2400 and 4800. Really would

love to own the 4800, but can't justify cost vs. output. The ink

difference between the 2200 and 2400, steers me in the direction of

the 2400. The question I have now is is the cost of ink a major

concern (what are my costs per 8x10-are they economical vs. lab wet

process)and is the BW that much better in the 2400 vs. the 2200, in

your opinion. I would also appreciate anyone who feels strongly in

steering me away from the 2400, with valid, unbiased knowledge, of

course. Thanks in advance!

 

Sean

I'd be less worried about the cost of ink than about the less than favourable longevity of non-pigment printers, so I think that would be worth it. I've got no figures for you there, though, but someone else might have.<p>

From its addition of another black ink, it should be better for b&w prints than its predecessor, but probably still less so than a dedicated b&w inkset and a dedicated b&w printer might be, and if you do both colour and black & white a bit every day and don't want the fuss of two printers, it's definitely convenient.<p>

There's a decent review of the R2400 <a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-1.htm"> here</a> that might be worth a read. Probably others out there too, but I think Photo-i usually runs very thorough reviews that makes deciding easier.<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

Just for the record, I don't own a 2400 - yet - but with the current printer market, that would be my first choice when my economy (as well as finding space for it) allows.<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

Sean, I've got the 2200 and I print on velvet fine art paper. Using the 2200's dedicated software, B&W prints are simply unacceptable. The midtones have a ghastly palor like the scales on a dead fish.

 

 

However, I've just started using QuadToneRIP with the standard Epson UltraChrome inks (I suspect there will be a QTR for the 2400 shortly):

 

 

http://harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html

 

 

The program is very easy to use and, even straight up, without doing any profiling, I'm getting prints with no metamerism. The tone of the print is a tiny bit warmer than neutral and reminds me of Ilford Galerie fiber-based photographic paper after a little selenium toning.

I used the 220 for about 2 years and replaced it with the 2400 as soon as it was available. For b&w on the 2200 I used either Imageprint or QuadtoneRIP which did a very good job. With the 2400 there is no need for a third party RIP to get good b&w.

 

As for cost of operation as a serious amature who does a handfull of 8x10 aweek and the occasional 12x18 it is not a big issue. However if you are a pro making lots of prints you shoule seriously consider the 4800. Yes the upfront cost is much higher but the cost per print is much lower with the 4800. It uses high capacity ink cartridges that are much more economical. With enough volume you could easily pay for the extra upfront costs in a few months. Not sure what the exact numbers are but it is something you should look into.

The cost of paper and ink for an 8x10 print on premium paper about $1.50, depending on the content and print settings. You can get 4x6 prints from a commercial processor much cheaper than on an inkjet. Anything larger is usually more economical at home.

 

This presumes your time is worth nothing. A dye-sub printer, like a Kodak 1400, costs about $1.80 for an 8x10 (8x12) print. However, the Kodak prints in 90 seconds compared to several minutes in a 2400 (my 2200 takes about 8 minutes/8x10 on Premium Luster paper).

 

If the 2400 is as good as a 2200 (reports say it is better and faster), you will make beautiful prints. Ink cost is much less (75% less) in a 4800 (re www.luminous-landscape.com). It is not a step to be taken lightly. The printer weighs nearly 100 pounds, is the size of a desktop, and costs nearly $900 to fill with ink.

Is it a verified fact that ink in the 4800 is 75% cheaper. Also, is there any concern if the printer is not used for possibly 5-7 days during periods when my enlargement orders are non-existent or is shelf life a concern on the larger ink tanks?

5-7 days is not a problem for epson printers, much over 14 probably is.

There was just an analysis of the cost per page of printing on the 2400 at the Epson 2400 yahoo group. Go to Yahoo and then select Groups and search for Epson 2400. Also some interesting analysis of the cost of doing various head cleanings and chnaging black cartridges.

 

The 2400 is a very nice printer IMO.

Sean,

 

Bottom line...You do not need a 4800 right now. Unlike most of the people writing to you in this forum, I actually own a 2400 and love it. I am a professional and while yes I would eventually like a 4800 I could not justify its costs (YET!). Instead I purchased the 2400 and am making more money with it (because of its excellent print quality!) than I was when I had the printed elsewhere (I no longer have to return prints for reprints I get what I want the first time without hassle)

 

Just add the extra costs (very minimal: about 7 dollars to print a 13X19 on semigloss) into your prices!

 

Pros

 

Silver Halide Quality B and W

Excellent Fine art printer (color or B/W)

Fast much faster than 2200

Accepts roll paper

Does not require a RIP program

Great skin tones

Large color gamut

Superior print quality to most labs!

Deep dark rich blacks

 

Cons

 

No paper cutter

somewhat expensive prints (trust me you wont notice!)

Not quite perfect glossies (but close!)

 

So go buy a 2400 and in a year or two you will have made enough money with it to buy a 4800. If you do purchase a 4800 the 2400 will serve as an excellent backup printer!

 

Remember don't get too big too fast.

 

E-mail me with any questions