Epson 1280. Comments from owners needed.

[mbyrne]

I'm looking at buying an Epson 1280. What is the quality like on this printer. I have a

photo show coming up at a club and was thinking about buying this to do this prints.

I was going to go with adorama to do the printing, but it's going to cost about 600

with them. I'm thinking if I get the printer and some really good paper, I might

actually save a few buck and have a new printer too. Any other recommendations?

 

thanks for any input.

[derek_simpson]

The quality is excellent IMHO though I'm no equipment guru. You will waste some (maybe MUCH) time and materials calibrating - so take that into account . The pendulum is swinging toward pigment ink as in the 2100/2200 rather than the less stable dyes of the 1280/90 - that's a judgement call only you can make - but 1280/90 picture quality is fine.

[jack paradise]

Probably the best color printer for 13x19 prints. If you only want to print to 8.5x11" then I would suggest an Epson R800.

 

For paper you might want to try these in addition to Epson papers:

Hahnemuhle Sample Pack 8.5x11" - 8 sheets http://www.adorama.com/IHUSP.html?searchinfo=ilfrod%20sample&item_no=10

 

Ilford Galerie paper http://www.inkjetart.com/photo_papers/ilford/samples.html

 

Legion Digital Art Paper Sampler Pack http://www.adorama.com/ILSSPN.html?searchinfo=ilfrod%20sample&item_no=15

 

For a canned profile for your Inkjet paper, once you've settle on a paper, $25.00 each

 

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/cm/profiles-download.html

[marshall]

I actually have a small show hanging at a club right now with prints from a 1280 on Epson Premium Lustre. [8x12 prints ganged (2-at-a-time, that is) onto 13x19" paper.] I'm actually using the profile that comes with Epson's PIM (which you have to download separately) and getting good results, though it's possible they'd be a little bit better with a custom profile.

 

In short, the 1280 is capable of very high quality photographic output. In exchange for it being cheaper than the 2200 and whatever the current Canon offering is, it's pretty slow, uses a single ink cartridge for colors, and lacks the archival 'permancence' of pigment inks, especially if the prints are not behind glass. It also lacks the bronzing of the pigments, but that's a different issue. The color gamut doesn't extend quite as far into highly saturated reds and yellows, but extends a little further into saturated blues and greens.

 

Of course, if you're looking at this as a solution for a single show (and you don't specify how many prints or how large), it may or may not be a cost-effective solution. For any one print beyond 8x10, the marginal cost of a few bucks per page will likely be less than Adorama, but there's more to go into the equation. Hope that helps a little.

[frankl]

The 1280 is both the best and worst printer i've ever owned.

 

The image output, when it decides to work, is stunning and gallery-quality. The problem with it (and many epson inkjets) is that they clog when not in constant use. If I leave it for a few weeks between printings, i'm invariably wasting ink doing cleaning and test cycles. If i leave it for longer, it sometimes needs the Epson Windex Trick to unclog the jets so it works properly again.

 

That said i'm looking at a 13x17 print here on my wall from the 1280 on heavyweight matte and it is fabulous. I prefer doing my own prints versus a lab like adorama simply for the control factor - i can examine each print, tweak accordingly if needed and print out another until i'm satisfied and willing to sign my name to it.

 

hope this helps.

[chip]

Hi Mike,

 

I've looked (and continue to look), at top model Epson and Canon inkjet prints and think that Epson still has the edge in terms of pure image quality. This is not to say that Epsons are perfect, they're not.

 

I have a 1280S and 2200 and they are very different printers. I tend to prefer the 1280 for the gammut, impact and image sharpness it can produce when compared to the 2200. The 2200 can produce fantastic images too though it seems to favor subtle, color nuanced images more than hard hitting razor sharp images the 1280 seems to prefer.

 

The thing you need to consider is paper, do you prefer to print on matte or glossy? Pick one or the other as the 1280 (best with glossy), and 2200 (best with matte), each do one or the other much better then the other. The 2200 simply cannot match the 1280 on premium glossy Epson (PGPP), paper and the 1280 while excellent on high gloss, semigloss or pearl finish papers is clearly not as good as the 2200 on matte or watercolor papers.

 

HTH

[eric_brody]

I recently went through a decision process when my trusty (?) 1270 finally bit the dust. I considered the 2200, more money up front, archival (?) quality but went with the 1280 instead. After speaking with an outfit that repairs and sells printers, and hearing that ALL inkjets can clog, the 2200 as well as the 1280, I decided that the $300 difference was better spent elsewhere. I do not sell my color prints, so "forever" is not an issue; I like the look of Epson's premium glossy paper, which most will agree works better on a dye (1280) vs pigment (2200) printer. I do my "serious" black and white work in a chemical darkroom and plan to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Those were my reasons; the 1280 is currently humming along; I'll likely be using it even more now that I purchased a Nikon D70 instead of the film scanning I had been doing.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

[john_shriver]

I have an Epson 890, which is (was?) the smaller version of the 1280. I'm very happy with it. We use it as the everyday printer, so that nozzle plugs are quite rare.

 

BUT, don't assume you will save money unless you factor in the ink costs. Not cheap to run. Good paper isn't free either.

 

I've decided that 49 cents a 4x6 print from CD at an ICC-profiled Fuji Frontier (Zeff Photo) is a better deal. I just convert to their profile, and burn a CD-R. Plus, the Frontier is continuous tone, not dithered.

 

For larger prints, the price issue is more ambiguous.

 

Certainly, the full control over color balance you have with local printing, and fast feedback, helps. ICC color management, and monitor calibration, are essential. Factor the price of a monitor calibrator in.

 

I typically use Epson Matte Paper Heavyweight for B&W (using the color inks and ICC), and Epson Photo-Life for color. When I do print 4x6's in color, I use the Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper 4" roll.

[mark_herring]

First, don't get into home printing expecting to save money. The cost benefit in digital is what you DON'T print, and the benefit in home printing is the control and freedom.

 

I've had a 1280 for over two years and it is fabulous. After a tour as the GP printer, it is now dedicated to MIS archival pigment ink. At it's side is a photo 900 (same guts) with MIS "Epson-equivalent" dye ink. Great results here too.

[williamw]

Frank,

 

Could you explain what's the Epson Windex trick as I'm having problems getting the heads really clean on my 1280.

 

Thanks.

[david_richert]

Look at installing a continuous ink system. I bought mine from colorbat.com the out lay was more than my printer ( I have the smaller 870 model) but after what would of been three sets of cartages my 4oz bottles are still almost full.

[michelen]

I have an Epson 1280, and have sort of a love-hate relationship with it.

It does beautiful prints, but requires lots of test prints and tweaking of printer driver settings for each shot, which gets expensive, considering the amount of ink it uses.

 

I don't use it every day, so the nozzles get clogged quite often.

 

I truly hate the printer driver. I am not exactly an idiot when it comes to this stuff--I work in print production/prepress--but this thing gives me hives. There are too many settings, too many variables, and it doesn't seem possible to determine one set of settings that will work with one type of paper reliably.

 

That's been my experience, anyway.

 

Michele Nelson

[davidfink_photography]

I'll echo the comments from Frank and Michele. My 1280 produces wonderful prints.....but the constant head clogging makes operation a frustrating experience. I've learned to run a nozzle check every time I get set for a print run, and multiple head cleaning cycles are very often required. Love-hate relationship is an apt way to describe it.