Epson R800--new twist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Herring
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Herring

It just dawned on me that the new Epson R800 no longer uses "photo"
cyan and magneta--i.e. lighter shades of the two colors to help get
good tonal scale. They have also added red and blue.

AND, they are advertising 1.5 pl drops.

1. How do they get the same tonal scale? e.g. is the red and
blue ink a lighter shade? Or is it the much smaller drop size that
compensates for fewer colors?

2. What motivated this seemingly radical change in the
technology? I can't find anyone else that has done it. What
performance issue were they trying to address?

3. Now we have to readjust out thinking. If you thought you
understood subtractive primaries in printing, how do you relate to
mixing red ink and cyan ink? Sound like black to me.

Interesting side note: The HP 7960 is staying with the old 6-color
paradigm (CMYKphCphM) + the extra gray and black. Curiously, this is
not immediately available on their website---I found it at Reinks.
Thus is seems that Epson's move is not a reaction---unless they are
just doing something to be different.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
 
Mark Herring said:
It just dawned on me that the new Epson R800 no longer uses "photo"
cyan and magneta--i.e. lighter shades of the two colors to help get
good tonal scale. They have also added red and blue.

AND, they are advertising 1.5 pl drops.

1. How do they get the same tonal scale? e.g. is the red and
blue ink a lighter shade? Or is it the much smaller drop size that
compensates for fewer colors?

2. What motivated this seemingly radical change in the
technology? I can't find anyone else that has done it. What
performance issue were they trying to address?

3. Now we have to readjust out thinking. If you thought you
understood subtractive primaries in printing, how do you relate to
mixing red ink and cyan ink? Sound like black to me.

Interesting side note: The HP 7960 is staying with the old 6-color
paradigm (CMYKphCphM) + the extra gray and black. Curiously, this is
not immediately available on their website---I found it at Reinks.
Thus is seems that Epson's move is not a reaction---unless they are
just doing something to be different.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
Click to expand...

check it out here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html
 
check it out here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html
Click to expand...
An amazingly complete review, but does not directly answer most of my
questions. As I read it, the purpose of red and blue is to increase
gamut.

I find nothing to refute the postulate that the small drops offset the
lack of diluted colors.

Looks like a fabulous printer.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
 
AND, they are advertising 1.5 pl drops.

See full review here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson R800/page_1.htm
"Colours on the R800 are nothing short of superb. I have never had a
better quality from the photo-i test print, skin tones are more lifelike
than anything I have seen before and I have seen allot of printers over
the years."

"Would I buy one? - Yes,

The R800 is for the creative photographer who wants the highest quality
pigment ink printer currently available. I hope Epson don't leave it too
long before they introduce a larger format printer using the new
UltraChrome inks and Gloss Optimizer. Wouldn't it be nice if the delay
on the 4000 printer was due to a re-design to incorporate the new inks.
All we need now is the announcement of the Epson Stylus Pro 2300 - just
wishful thinking."
1. How do they get the same tonal scale? e.g. is the red and
blue ink a lighter shade? Or is it the much smaller drop size that
compensates for fewer colors?
Click to expand...

The R800 is basically the same as the Japanese PX-G900.

See expanded color gamut picture showing you how the extra colors help
here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Nov03/images/Gamut.jpg
and here:
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/pxg900/img/tech/t_pic4.jpg
on this page:
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/pxg900/pxg9002.htm

Basically, the Red and Blue help cover areas of the sRGB gamut that
previously could not be covered by a 6+ color printer, and basically
expands the print range to cover more of the standard sRGB gamut.
2. What motivated this seemingly radical change in the
technology? I can't find anyone else that has done it. What
performance issue were they trying to address?
Click to expand...

What technology change? Smaller dots? That's been shrinking for the
past 10+ years of color inkjet printing. More colors? That's already
been done 10+ years ago in the press world with 6-color Hexachrome and
other 6+color systems, so desktop printers are only 'catching up'. (And
even they don't use lighter shades of a color.)

Different ink colors? Nobody's agreed what's the 'best' set of
colors to use beyond CYMK - every maker will disagree and every printer
will have a different goal in mind.

Encapsulated inks? Epson introduced this years ago with their
widebody, archival printers (2200 series and older), so that's not new
news. Of course, the 'heat' they received over the Epson 870/1270etc
prints fading quickly to orange (http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/)
probably was a big motivator to move to more archival ink sets.

(Of course, even on Epson Japan's website, they toot how their latest
printers with the new PX/PM series of 'improved' inks last far longer
than their prior Epson printer prints - which they show fading in less
than a year in their advertisements even!!.

eg. see this comparison between new Epson and old Epson
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/pmg800/img/tech/t_pic1.jpg)

Sucks when you think all of those older Epson prints aren't that long
lasting (and if you remember, they initially were tooting these older
printer models to make long-lasting prints! - something they retracted
after the orange-fading fiasco became well-known.)
3. Now we have to readjust out thinking. If you thought you
understood subtractive primaries in printing, how do you relate to
mixing red ink and cyan ink? Sound like black to me.
Click to expand...

Actually, think crayola's and pointilism. Basically, if you have
just 4-colors, there's no way you'd make a true blue or red just by
mixing the 4-colors you have. You can get close, but never quite a pure
blue or red. Adding these two colors allows prints to contain these
shades, and you simply do what has been done before - dither and space
out the dots to get lighter shades.

On the page, the dots can be placed side-by-side, and when you use
different colors beside each other, they'll combine together when viewed
at regular viewing distances just like an impressionist painting or
CRT/LCD monitor to produce an apparent shade of color in between.

This apparent 'mixing' of colors when viewing small 'dots' of color
at long distances is in play in CRTs, LCDs, magazine prints and inkjet
prints.

That said, it works, and you get more shades of color and an expanded
print color gamut with more ink colors used.

Of course, one of the colors that they still would need to put in to
truely make people happy is a good orange, one of the tougher colors to
produce from other colors they're using today in inkjet printers. (ala
Hexachrome, which I believe introduced a nice green and orange - correct
me if I'm mistaken)
Interesting side note: The HP 7960 is staying with the old 6-color
paradigm (CMYKphCphM) + the extra gray and black. Curiously, this is
not immediately available on their website---I found it at Reinks.
Thus is seems that Epson's move is not a reaction---unless they are
just doing something to be different.
Click to expand...

HP is targeting the B&W print market with their extra gray/black
colors, but for real - how many of us out there print B&W? Yes, a few,
but a very small minority vs. the many other color users. (just like
those who still use B&W film vs. color)

While it's interesting to see HP target what is still Epson's market
for B&W prints (www.inkjetmall.com was selling the Piezography BW system
for Epson printers many years before HP even got into this; still a
great, gorgeous system for B&W enthusiasts if you're into making
archival, museum quality B&W prints), they haven't tacked the other
issues of having a large selection of archival, museum type paper
choices quite like the Epson + Piezeography BW system has with 3rd party
papers and archival ink sets.

Full details of the Piezography BW system for the B&W print enthusiast here:
http://inkjetmall.com/store/bw/piezographyBW.html

History of Piezography BW system here:
http://inkjetmall.com/store/bw/bwtimeline.html

(See Yahoo! Groups for the Epson Inkjet forum for very lengthy,
in-depth discussions on this B&W Piezography system if you're interested
in making quality B&W, archival inkjet prints.)


( Of course, with 4 ink cartridges in the 7960 system, one of which
you must swap out and keep unused in the spare storage compartment, it's
a bit silly when you think about it -- why not simply have all four
cartridges colors available all the time like the Canons and Epsons? A
pain in the butt if you think about it - I want nice B&W prints - swap
cartidige, I want nice color prints - swap cartridge, oh, I want nice
B&W prints again - swap cartridge...

Still, it is not a bad printer by far (see review):
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP 7960/page_1.htm )
 
David Chien said:
See full review here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson R800/page_1.htm
"Colours on the R800 are nothing short of superb. I have never had a
better quality from the photo-i test print, skin tones are more lifelike
than anything I have seen before and I have seen allot of printers over
the years."

"Would I buy one? - Yes,

The R800 is for the creative photographer who wants the highest quality
pigment ink printer currently available. I hope Epson don't leave it too
long before they introduce a larger format printer using the new
UltraChrome inks and Gloss Optimizer. Wouldn't it be nice if the delay
on the 4000 printer was due to a re-design to incorporate the new inks.
All we need now is the announcement of the Epson Stylus Pro 2300 - just
wishful thinking."


The R800 is basically the same as the Japanese PX-G900.

See expanded color gamut picture showing you how the extra colors help
here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Nov03/images/Gamut.jpg
and here:
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/pxg900/img/tech/t_pic4.jpg
on this page:
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/printer/inkjet/pxg900/pxg9002.htm

Basically, the Red and Blue help cover areas of the sRGB gamut that
previously could not be covered by a 6+ color printer, and basically
expands the print range to cover more of the standard sRGB gamut.


What technology change? Smaller dots? That's been shrinking for the
Click to expand...
past 10+ years of color inkjet printing. More colors? That's already
been done 10+ years ago in the press world with 6-color Hexachrome and
other 6+color systems, so desktop printers are only 'catching up'. (And
even they don't use lighter shades of a color.)
Click to expand...

....snip...

Actually, David, the thing that struck me most was that even this new R800
still shows signs of not being entirely accurate in the blue through purple
color range. I've been using Epson 6 color printers for a long time, too
(although have not yet replaced my 1270) and have used Colorvision's Print
Profiler to make my own profiles (as well as using Epson's own profiles).
One thing that has always bothered me about the Epsons is color reproduction
through this range. Look at the spools on

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html

page 3. Granted, this is with an uncalibrated R800, but if you even look at
the spools on page 10, those last two spools on the right are still (IMO)
not as accurate as the Canon i950. A lot of my photos tend to have colors in
this range, and I can never seem to get them accurately reproduced on the
1270. Is the R800 better? It looks like it might be (for this issue), but in
looking at this review I'm starting to think the Canon i950 has a better
color accuracy across the range.
 
Mark Herring said:
It just dawned on me that the new Epson R800 no longer uses "photo"
cyan and magneta--i.e. lighter shades of the two colors to help get
good tonal scale. They have also added red and blue.
Click to expand...

Correct. An interesting change.
AND, they are advertising 1.5 pl drops.

1. How do they get the same tonal scale? e.g. is the red and
blue ink a lighter shade? Or is it the much smaller drop size that
compensates for fewer colors?

2. What motivated this seemingly radical change in the
technology? I can't find anyone else that has done it. What
performance issue were they trying to address?

3. Now we have to readjust out thinking. If you thought you
understood subtractive primaries in printing, how do you relate to
mixing red ink and cyan ink? Sound like black to me.
Click to expand...

Ah. There's the problem. There is no "subtractive primaries" in Epson
(or Canon) inkjets. The various ink colors are not "layered", mixed, or
combined in any actual way. The appearance of a full range of output
colors is accomplished by dithering many tiny drops of the available
ink colors. If the dots are small enough, and the dot spacing is close
enough, the appearance will be that of pure colors, to the unaided eye.

Dye sublimation printers use a subtractive approach. That is also why a
300 "dpi" dye sublimation print looks as good or better than a 1440 "dpi"
inkjet print. The dye sub is producing a real 300 24-bit-color pixels per
inch. The inkjet uses a much higher dpi pattern of its few colors to achieve
the same effect.

I tried an experiment where I printed 3 scans of the same original photo,
where each scan was set to produce 150, 300, and 600 ppi of information
at my desired print size. After printing each sample on my 4 color Epson
880 printer at 2880 x 720 dpi, I found virtually no difference between the
3 prints (to my unaided eye). Essentially, that says my 880 is only capable
of printing an effective 150 Pixels Per Inch. Going about it another way,
I took a rough stab at how big a block of pixels would have to be to represent
24 bit color with 2880 x 720 dots per inch of 5 colors (3 colors, black,
and the white paper). As I recall, my calculation came out in the ball park
of 150 ppi as well. (Actually, I think the numbers actually came out to some
thing like 18-20 bit color at 150 ppi.)

Anyway, the upshot is that more colors (what ever they are) will allow higher
resolution. I believe that the use of light cyan and light magenta were originally
chosen to address large areas of light color with gradual tonal variations.
Typically, this was an area where earlier 4 color inkjects were particularly
noticable.
Interesting side note: The HP 7960 is staying with the old 6-color
paradigm (CMYKphCphM) + the extra gray and black. Curiously, this is
not immediately available on their website---I found it at Reinks.
Click to expand...

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that HP adopted the extra
grey and black to improve grey scale printing.
Thus is seems that Epson's move is not a reaction---unless they are
just doing something to be different.
Click to expand...
....

Given the high quality outputs I've seen from Epson's printers, I'm quite
interested to see what their new idea does in the R800.


--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
No, no, no / Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot."
 
Dan Wojciechowski said:
I tried an experiment where I printed 3 scans of the same original photo,
where each scan was set to produce 150, 300, and 600 ppi of information
at my desired print size. After printing each sample on my 4 color Epson
880 printer at 2880 x 720 dpi, I found virtually no difference between the
3 prints (to my unaided eye). Essentially, that says my 880 is only capable
of printing an effective 150 Pixels Per Inch.
Click to expand...

No, it says that something in the *system* has a resolution not much
better than 150ppi - and that could be, and probably is, your unaided
eye. A good adult eye ought to be able to resolve 250ppi when properly
corrected, so you might see the difference between 150 and 300ppi, but
you are unlikely to see any difference between 300 and 600ppi without
some magnification.

Also, your choice of source resolutions is not optimised for the Epson
printer range, which should be integer divisions of the driver's native
resolution. For Epson's current desktop range that is 720ppi,
irrespective of the dot placement resolution, and for their wide body
professional range it is 360ppi. ie. you should have used 180ppi,
360ppi and 720ppi to avoid any resampling artefacts from being
misinterpreted as resolution differences. (Any resampling artefact
would reproduce as a coarser pitch effect, due to aliasing.)
Going about it another way,
I took a rough stab at how big a block of pixels would have to be to represent
24 bit color with 2880 x 720 dots per inch of 5 colors (3 colors, black,
and the white paper). As I recall, my calculation came out in the ball park
of 150 ppi as well. (Actually, I think the numbers actually came out to some
thing like 18-20 bit color at 150 ppi.)
Click to expand...
That would be fine if the printers used fixed half tone cells, so that
each cell was capable of printing the full colour gamut of the printer.
However that is not how these inkjet printers operate. They use a
stochastic dither process, where the error between the colour that is
required and the closest approximation the printer can achieve in the
pixel is equally distributed into the neighbouring pixels. The upshot
of this is that the printer achieves the full colour gamut across many
pixels - roughly corresponding to the estimate that you made. However,
where sufficient contrast is present in the image, the resolution can be
much higher - up to the native resolution of the driver itself. Thus
the printer automatically trades off colour precision for resolution.

There is nothing new in that principle, it is similar to the process
used in TV systems, where the luminance resolution can be as much as 4x
that of the chroma resolution. They both exploit the fact that your eye
is less critical of the precision of the colour at high resolutions and,
provided the resolution is present in the image, the colour precision
can be distributed over a much coarser scale.

I regularly print contact strip pages of all of my films, with each
image on the page measuring around 4.5 x 3cm. These images are normally
viewed with a magnifier (approx. x4) and the images certainly contain an
awful lot more resolution than 150ppi. I have printed test patterns
which prove conclusively that an Epson desktop can achieve 360cy/in (ie
720ppi equivalent) when the contrast in the image is adequate.
 
....
\> >880 printer at 2880 x 720 dpi, I found virtually no difference between the
No, it says that something in the *system* has a resolution not much
better than 150ppi - and that could be, and probably is, your unaided
eye. A good adult eye ought to be able to resolve 250ppi when properly
Click to expand...
....
Actually, quite true. For the record, I used my unaided, corrected (to 20-20)
eyesight.

....
That would be fine if the printers used fixed half tone cells, so that
each cell was capable of printing the full colour gamut of the printer.
However that is not how these inkjet printers operate. They use a
stochastic dither process, where the error between the colour that is
required and the closest approximation the printer can achieve in the
pixel is equally distributed into the neighbouring pixels. The upshot
of this is that the printer achieves the full colour gamut across many
pixels - roughly corresponding to the estimate that you made. However,
where sufficient contrast is present in the image, the resolution can be
much higher - up to the native resolution of the driver itself. Thus
the printer automatically trades off colour precision for resolution.
Click to expand...

Again, point taken.
....
I regularly print contact strip pages of all of my films, with each
image on the page measuring around 4.5 x 3cm. These images are normally
viewed with a magnifier (approx. x4) and the images certainly contain an
awful lot more resolution than 150ppi. I have printed test patterns
which prove conclusively that an Epson desktop can achieve 360cy/in (ie
720ppi equivalent) when the contrast in the image is adequate.
Click to expand...

A 720 dpi Epson printer certainly can't display any more output resolution than
720 ppi. Given a 4, 6, or 7 color printer, even this could only be achieved if the
pixels were alternating uses of the colors available to the printer. (The 4, 6, or 7
inks + white from the paper.) Hmmm, given your point above of error diffusion
and human perceptual differences between chroma and luminance, I'm willing
to grant a slightly greater color gamut to 720 ppi. Still, I see these cases as
fairly unrepresentative of real world photographs.

....


--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
No, no, no / Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot."
 
Dan Wojciechowski said:
Hmmm, given your point above of error diffusion
and human perceptual differences between chroma and luminance, I'm willing
to grant a slightly greater color gamut to 720 ppi. Still, I see these
cases as
fairly unrepresentative of real world photographs.
Click to expand...
A common enough concern, but of little substance. The purpose of using
a test pattern is not to represent a real world image, but to address a
particular aspect of real world images in a repeatable, controllable and
measurable way. Nevertheless, and despite being exceedingly
non-intuitive, it is a mathematically provable fact that any and every
real world image can be decomposed into the summation of a suitably
weighted series of sine and cosine intensity patterns. ie. test
patterns. Similarly each and every image can be reproduced from the
summation of a suitably weighted series of test patterns. This
procedure is a fundamental part of the jpeg image encoding scheme, with
the level of compression merely being determined by the precision and
accuracy to which those test patterns and their relative weightings are
computed. So the argument that resolution test patterns have no
relevance to real world images is, in fact, completely groundless.
 
Kennedy McEwen said:
A common enough concern, but of little substance. The purpose of using
a test pattern is not to represent a real world image, but to address a
particular aspect of real world images in a repeatable, controllable and
measurable way. Nevertheless, and despite being exceedingly
non-intuitive, it is a mathematically provable fact that any and every
real world image can be decomposed into the summation of a suitably
weighted series of sine and cosine intensity patterns. ie. test
patterns. Similarly each and every image can be reproduced from the
summation of a suitably weighted series of test patterns. This
procedure is a fundamental part of the jpeg image encoding scheme, with
the level of compression merely being determined by the precision and
accuracy to which those test patterns and their relative weightings are
computed. So the argument that resolution test patterns have no
relevance to real world images is, in fact, completely groundless.
Click to expand...

Hello All-
Here's a another website to review the R800: www.photo-i.co.uk - It's
very thorough & detailed - With lots of pictures for comparison. Of
course, I posted this in an earlier post.
 
Hello All-
Here's a another website to review the R800: www.photo-i.co.uk - It's
very thorough & detailed - With lots of pictures for comparison. Of
course, I posted this in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

Have there been any other reviews of the R800? It's strange to me to
find so little mention of it on the internet, didn't it come out last
October?
Anyone know?

Thanks

Rose
 
1. How do they get the same tonal scale? e.g. is the red and
blue ink a lighter shade? Or is it the much smaller drop size that
compensates for fewer colors?
Click to expand...

Print quality and color are amazing. I simply urge you to go see this
printer's results first hand. Even on plain paper the colors are
outstanding. While not as bright or intense as on coating papers still very
nice on plain paper. And of course you can immerse the printed page and it
does not smear or run.
 
Basically, the Red and Blue help cover areas of the sRGB gamut that
Click to expand...
previously could not be covered by a 6+ color printer, and basically
expands the print range to cover more of the standard sRGB gamut.

Folks who work in the Adobe RGB color space will probably have less cause
to use the Red and Blue inks. In fact in Vincent Oliver's review he
mentions the lack of pigment usage for these two colors. But he may have
been working in a color space which doesn't tax their usage very much.
 
page 3. Granted, this is with an uncalibrated R800, but if you even look at
the spools on page 10, those last two spools on the right are still (IMO)
not as accurate as the Canon i950. A lot of my photos tend to have colors in
this range, and I can never seem to get them accurately reproduced on the
1270. Is the R800 better? It looks like it might be (for this issue), but in
looking at this review I'm starting to think the Canon i950 has a better
color accuracy across the range.
Click to expand...

As good as the R800 is it still does not quite match top of the line
dye-based inkjets (like my Canon i950) but the promise of print longevity
is what makes the R800 so very compelling.
 
In what way? Pigment printers are not as vibrant. They have longevity. The
difference is very small. I have a dye-based Epson (1270) and a
pigment-based Epson (7600) and the same print on both printers show a very
small difference.

This is particularly true of the Epson Ultrachrome pigment printers
(including the R800, 2200, 4000, 7600, 9600, etc). Amazing printers. I
particularly like my 7600 -- 24" wide prints by as long as you want.

Tom
 
In what way? Pigment printers are not as vibrant. They have longevity. The
difference is very small. I have a dye-based Epson (1270) and a
pigment-based Epson (7600) and the same print on both printers show a very
small difference.

This is particularly true of the Epson Ultrachrome pigment printers
(including the R800, 2200, 4000, 7600, 9600, etc). Amazing printers. I
particularly like my 7600 -- 24" wide prints by as long as you want.

Tom
Click to expand...

I was actually parroting the EPSON literature itself. They mention that
while pigments are getting better dye-based inks still have the "widest
color gamut, smoothest tonal gradations and dotless highlights"

My R800 however prints some extraordinary images. I just did the Vincent
Oliver test print on glossy paper and for the very first time I got a print
that looked better than my LCD display. Simply amazing!
 
I heard that the R800 is a ink guzzler from a post on the
(e-mail address removed). It makes sense but I haven't heard
anyone else discuss the number of 8x10 prints from a fresh all full set
of cartridges. Here is his reasoning:
It's a gas guzzler. I got the equivalent of 40
8x10's
on a magenta cartridge and by that time the gloss
optimizer was showing the yellow warning sign.
Before
I replaced the two cartridges the matte black, red
and
blue carts were just down a hair--a very thin hair.
However, after the printer went through its
convulsions of purging the new inks, the ink
indicator
showed MK, blue and red inks down a quarter. If
that
rate of lost ink in the purge continues it is very
expensive indeed. And you will be buying matte
black
carts that are never used in printing.
Click to expand...

Can anyone shed more light on prints per ink comparasion? Also does this
printer suffer from metamerism ? I'm looking for a high quality 8x10
full facial photo printer w/ good facial tones
 
I heard that the R800 is a ink guzzler from a post on the
Can anyone shed more light on prints per ink comparasion? Also does this
printer suffer from metamerism ? I'm looking for a high quality 8x10
full facial photo printer w/ good facial tones
Click to expand...

1) Almost all inkjet printers made today (with exception of
higher-end models with larger tanks), will produce about ~50 letter
sized photo prints on a set of cartridges regardless of brand, make or
model.

I've tested Canon through HP to Epson, and all of the models I've
tested do about that same amount no matter what. (These inkjet makers
are smart! --- make you go out and buy lots of $$$ cartridges!)

No, you won't find much variation from that in general, unless you
specifically find a large capacity ink printer, or install a bottle ink
feed system such as the CIS ink system sold by www.inkjetmall.com. The
CiS ink system will significantly reduce ink costs if you're doing lots
of prints per month.

2) Yes. at home inkjet photo printing is $$$. Expect about $0.30 -
$0.50 cents per 4x6" print you make regardless of brand, make or model,
in general.

Heck, even paper alone costs you. eg. cheapest brand-name out of
HP, Canon & Epson is Epson 4x6 100pk @ $15, or $0.15/4x6" print w/o cost
of ink!

3) See R800 detailed review here:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson R800/page_1.htm
 
Back
Top