Epson 1280 Silver vs. Photo 2200

[shawngibson]

Hi All. re: Epson 1280 Silver vs. Photo 2200

 

@ approximately 1/2 the price...is this $ difference made up in the

quality of the output?

 

I'm about to purchase my first 'good' printer, and I want to be able

to print sellable prints (working mostly from PS8-modified RAW 10D &

DRebel shots with good lenses), and have some shows (not expecting

to make $, just 'to get out there' with my work).

 

All else being equal, will I see a difference in output quality

between these 2 printers, assuming I'm feeding it good work on a

well-calibrated machine in the first place?

 

I DON'T really make any money at this yet, and so that extra $ could

be well spent on, well, more lenses (hehe).

 

Thanks very much,

 

Shawn

[wildwoodgallery]

I'm looking at the same printers for the same reason. I think if your going to sell prints you have to go with the 2200 for the longevity of pigmented inks. You might want wait just a bit. A new Epson printer that could replace the 2200 might be here soon. The good thing on the 2200 is you can get them under $600. I would guess the new printer is going to cost more. I've read you can't tell much difference in the prints of a 2200 and a R800.

 

You can go all pigmented inks for the 1280 too. I don't know how easy it to work with this setup. I've seen prints that look great this way but I think I'm getting a 2200.

 

Rick

[natalie_lewis]

Archivability (is that a word?) is the big issue here. The Epson 2200, they claim, creats prints with more longevity than the 1280 does. Also, the 2200 is supposedly better with black and white printing because of its "light gray" ink cartridge, but this is all hearsay. I know there are sites out there somewhere that compare these two printers side by side.

 

I chose the 2200 recently because I don't want to compromise on the final print. It is, after all, the product of many hours and dollars, and I want it to be the best it can possibly be. I've done silver black and white printing for many years, so I'm a stickler for quality. I've also been printing color through my lab's LightJet printer. Both methods are just about the best available. So when I decided to switch to doing everything myself, I don't want to make any sacrifices in my workflow. A few hundred bucks isn't worth crappy prints that fade in 10 or 15 years, right? My 2200 hasn't disappointed so far, and I don't think you'll be disappointed either.

[van_camper]

"I chose the 2200 recently because I don't want to compromise on the final print. It is, after all, the product of many hours and dollars, and I want it to be the best it can possibly be"

 

First, read up in here on pigment vs dye debate. The dye ink beats the 2200 in every way except archivability. That issue has changed too, it is a lot longer then 10-15 yrs....Epsons is 26 yrs, HP130 24" printer(great affordable price) is 75 yrs. Then there are Lyson archival and photonic inks with 70 year life. Lyson makes the inks for the Iris "dye" printer, they do know something., and are the parent company for Tiara Opal...a high end commercial grade printer. I think 75 years is long enough, unless your another Ansel Adams and expect collectors to buy your work and want it to last a zillion years. After all lithographs last 36 yrs, ciba(ilfochrome) about 46 yrs, kodak papers 20-25 yrs(use to be far worse and we were happy with it). Then again, maybe none of our ink jet prints will last even 25 yrs, other print forms have been proven by the test of real time. I want to at least enjoy my print today, right off the printer, the dye printer comes closest to the lightjet and ciba print process.

 

 

If you look at many of the printers coming out, things are moving towards dye. They say it is easier to improve the lifespan of dye ink then to solve the characteristics of pigment ink. It has a high dryer content, things sprayed this way end up dull due to a meteorite affect as the president of Lyson inks described.

 

Few main points...dye inks have dmax 3.0 vs pigments with 1.6-2.0 depending on paper, dyes are stable (do not settle to the bottom), chroma (brilliance) is far higher, dye doesn't scratch as easily. There are many more advantages, do a search in here for full details.

 

If you don't want to compromise on quality, and want it to be the best it could be.....how do you expect to achieve that? Pigments may last longer, but it won't look nearly as good as a dye print side by side. Impact, and brilliance is what sells, not dull, which only comes with a 3.0 dmax (the gamut may be similar, but that is only part of picture qaulity...that's why we selenium tone b/w prints for better blacks and longer life)! What about bronzing with pigment, that doesn't impress the customer much either unless you like matte paper?

[emre]

It would be folly to buy a 1280 (which is quite outdated now) when you could get a Canon i9900. Since you have no ambitions to sell anything, archivalness is probably not supremely important, so I would get the Canon.

[shawngibson]

Thanks everyone, for your responses.

 

On the issue of longevity alone, is it valid to say the 1280 is a waste of money? I've noticed that the price of the inks for the 2200 essentially assumes you will be getting a lot of money for your prints...to help pay for the ink...

 

Regarding what the previous posted said, yes, indeed, I'd be quite happy if the prints were guaranteed for nothing more that say 10 years behind glass in non-direct sun. I would be willing to guarantee for that period of time, at the prices I'm expecting to ask for ANY home-made prints.

 

Shawn

[shawngibson]

I think what I find confounding here, is that...3 or 4 years ago, when I was regularly reading up on printers and printing here at pdn...everyone was absolutely blown away by the 1270/1280 Epsons.

 

Now...several years later...well...

 

There is a tremendious difference in price, $420 vs. $999 between the 1280 and the 2200, and I just want to know if what was once touted as the best home printer is really so much considered junk and not worth the money even when compared to a printer that is 150% more money.

 

...is it 150% MORE PRINTER? Let's leave pigments out, as from what I can tell, I can go the pigment route with either of these printers, with a little effort.

 

I have to be very cost-conscious these days. That $600 difference replaces a stolen lens.

 

Shawn

[almagnus]

I read somewhere "Dmax of nearly 3" with a dye printer... and 1.6 to 2 with pigment... I really think someone's mixing things up. Which paper, which settings etc.. etc..? I happily possess both: a dye printer and an pigment printer. I really think the gap is not so large, and the paper is of prime importance. Honeslty, excellent prints can be obtained with dye on glossy, with pigment on semi-gloss and mat. As for archival purposes, don't hesitate... go for pigment.

[shawngibson]

Thanks everyone. After all your words and some more educated searching, and after finding this:

 

http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/chipreset.html

 

...I think I'll just go for the 1280 for now.

 

& If I make some money...then I'll keep it for B+W work, and get the 2200 for colour.

 

:)

 

Shawn

[van_camper]

I read somewhere "Dmax of nearly 3" with a dye printer... and 1.6 to 2 with pigment... I really think someone's mixing things up. Which paper, which settings etc.. etc..? I happily possess both: a dye printer and an pigment printer. I really think the gap is not so large, and the paper is of prime importance. Honeslty, excellent prints can be obtained with dye on glossy, with pigment on semi-gloss and mat. As for archival purposes, don't hesitate... go for pigment.

-----------------------------------

 

AL,

 

This information is widely known. Dmax 3.0 is what Epson stands by.

Your lucky to make Dmax 2.0 with the UC ink, from what I read it's closer to 1.9 on the best of papers. Try doing a search under dye vs pigment, or under Printers/High Volume section. There is plenty to read if you look.

 

My guess is your printing technique is bad and your not using the full tonal range that a dye printer is capable of if you can't see a substantial difference. It is night and day when it comes to brilliance.

[ted_marcus1]

I sell prints made on an Epson 780, a narrow-carriage printer that uses the same ink and print technology as the 1280. I'm very happy with the prints I make on "Heavyweight Matte" paper, and so far nobody who has bought a print has complained. I do include instructions to frame the print behind glass and keep it away from direct sunlight-- advice that applies to any color print. Epson claims a 25-year lifespan for framed prints on Heavyweight Matte paper. Even if that's optimistic as I suspect, the prints are still respectably durable. I've seen prints on conventional paper fade significantly in less than ten years.

 

I have a few prints hanging on the walls at home that are intentionally situated to get regular exposure to direct sunlight as a test. After more than three years, none of them show noticeable fading (although I would not doubt that they would show some fading when placed next to fresh prints).

 

I do have some complaints about the 780 that aren't related to print quality or longevity. The print heads tend to clog if more than a week goes by without using the printer. And the USB driver tends to hang up and have "communication failures" (the workaround is to use a parallel port). It's a temperamental beast. But when it's working it makes beautiful prints. I am considering taking advantage of the price drop on the 1280 and replacing the aging 780 so I can make larger prints. I think it's good value for money.

[almagnus]

Dear Van,

Firstly, when I said you are getting things mixed up, I obviously meant, that you should take into account the paper. For exemple, a deep black on a silver gelatin print will get a Dmax around 2.2 on baryte paper. On matt papers, whether dye or not the Dmax is substancially lower, and the difference between dye and pigment is reduced (1.6 to 1.8). Now when Epson claims a Dmax of 3, I would like to know the paper and ink combinations and exact technical details. Some people, years ago in the printing industry, were also measuring fabulous Dmax... by enhancing the brilliance of the support and measuring at a favourable wavelength. Anyway, no need to worry, excellent pigment prints (using UC or piezo) easily rival in many aspects with dye prints and silver prints.

[david_f._stein]

With aftermarket cartridges and continuous flow systems, you can put just about type of ink you want in either printer. No one has mentioned what gives the nod to the 2200 - it is built to a higher professional construction standard and has the straight paper path-a great benefit for thicker art papers. Mine does not clog, even with long stretches between use, and the paper grab is better than other models I've used. Still, the paper grab is one of the weaker links in the Epson design - I wish its brilliant engineers would put some attention to that area. You really can't go wrong with either printer.

 

I am not an expert, but I believe pigment inks are still very much state of the art. The next frontier is making them perform better on glossier paper (REAL PHOTO PRINTS!) through the gloss optimizer. My understanding is that the paper coatings are just as important as the inks and that is where a great deal of research is directed.

[shawngibson]

>>a great benefit for thicker art papers

 

What kind of difference can I expect here? Am I limited to only standard, regular papers with the 1280?

 

Thanks for the advice:)

 

Shawn

[gary_anthes]

I can't comment on 1280 vs. 2200, but it sounds like you know the arguments there as regards longevity. Since the subject of 1280 vs. Canon i9900 came up in this thread, I'll just say I've had two of each and could not consistently match the 1280's quality with the i9900, even after extensive tweaking of the i9900's settings. I sent both i9900's back to Amazon. (The 1280 is going for $361 on Amazon right now, BTW, with a $100 rebate.) The 1280 is VERY slow compared to the i9900, so that could be a factor if you do a lot of printing.

[gary_anthes]

P.S. I said, "The 1280 is going for $361 on Amazon right now, BTW, with a $100 rebate." To be clear, I should have said $361 PLUS $100 rebate, or $261 net.

[van_camper]

"On matt papers, whether dye or not the Dmax is substancially lower, and the difference between dye and pigment is reduced (1.6 to 1.8). Now when Epson claims a Dmax of 3, I would like to know the paper and ink combinations and exact technical details. Some people, years ago in the printing industry, were also measuring fabulous Dmax..."

--------------------------

 

Al, if you want to believe dye is in the range of 1.6-1.8, then go ahead. For details of which paper for Dmax 3.0(that means glossy most of time) go to Epson. The numbers I gave earlier are common knowledge, not something I made up. Do a search here.

 

"when I said you are getting things mixed up, I obviously meant, that you should take into account the paper. " --->Yes, I did take different papers into account. That's why I quoted the range of values for UC, unfortunately I should have said for dye a Dmax3.0(glossy only). Seems your the one mixed up!

[Greg Fight]

Shawn - I've been using the 1280 for the past 3 or 4 years. It's a

great printer. I print for exhibition and print sales, mostly black &

white, using hextone pigment inks from MIS and acid-free paper

from Moab. The 1280 produces beautiful prints, not the same as

conventional wet darkroom prints, but maybe just as good.

 

I've never had clogging problems and I can load heavy paper

(300gsm). I use matte paper and don't have any bronzing or

metamerism problems. I would prefer smooth or glossy surface

paper with a better D-max. It's just a matter of time before those

papers become available for use with pigment inks.

 

I think you would really be pleased with the 1280.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I too use a 1280 with a D-70 and the prints up to max 13 by 19 have been beautiful. Glad to hear the 300 wt paper works. I just placed my first order with Moab and went with the 150 because I wasn't sure.