M
Mikey
Just wondered if there is an A3 version of the R300, that also takes the
same ink carts.
Thanks
Mikey
same ink carts.
Thanks
Mikey
C
Cari
I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the R1800 takes A3
paper, as does the R2400.
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/product_hub/Product_Listing_Inkjets_Photo.htm
paper, as does the R2400.
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/product_hub/Product_Listing_Inkjets_Photo.htm
Z
zakezuke
I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
going with 3rd party inks.
But near as i'm aware there isn't any equilivent to the r300... with
the screen and card slots in a3/a3+ at all.
There are canons and HPs that are a3/a3+ that are dye, in fact Canon
doesn't even offer pigments at all unless you go with their wide
models... a1 and above IIRC.
Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
going with 3rd party inks.
But near as i'm aware there isn't any equilivent to the r300... with
the screen and card slots in a3/a3+ at all.
There are canons and HPs that are a3/a3+ that are dye, in fact Canon
doesn't even offer pigments at all unless you go with their wide
models... a1 and above IIRC.
F
frederick
?zakezuke said:
The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
print life).
Z
zakezuke
Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
I stand corrected on the drop size on the r2400, it's 3.5pl, rather
than the r200/r300 at 3pl IIRC. I naturally assumed since the r2400
costs more than the r1800 that it would have at least the same or finer
head, my mistake.
Keep in mind the OP was looking for an a3 version of the r200/r300,
which well doesn't exist exactly, the only thing close in terms of
colors is the r2400 in terms of colors except they are pigment and have
extra blacks.
The only reason I can think of using dye in a pigment printer is if you
want dye and they don't sell a wide dye printer. Lots of people like
dye... just ask anyone who prints in HP vivera inks
I stand corrected on the drop size on the r2400, it's 3.5pl, rather
than the r200/r300 at 3pl IIRC. I naturally assumed since the r2400
costs more than the r1800 that it would have at least the same or finer
head, my mistake.
Keep in mind the OP was looking for an a3 version of the r200/r300,
which well doesn't exist exactly, the only thing close in terms of
colors is the r2400 in terms of colors except they are pigment and have
extra blacks.
The only reason I can think of using dye in a pigment printer is if you
want dye and they don't sell a wide dye printer. Lots of people like
dye... just ask anyone who prints in HP vivera inks
S
Shooter
frederick said:
Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and printed on
an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film lab.
You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a printer
60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish I
get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM would
cost me over £12.
F
frederick
You've lost me here. The R1800 or the R2400 are both in an entirelyzakezuke said:
different league from the R300 in colour gamut. The R800 uses C M Y K
pK R and Blue, plus GO. The Red and Blue (as well as CMY and K) get used
in photo printing.
The R2400 uses three black cartridges - and is understandably better for
B&W prints in terms of colour cast and metamerism. But there is no free
lunch, it uses more ink per print, and wastes ink when you change black
cartridges when switching between gloss and matte media.
There is some discussion of user comparison for colour output here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=637
F
frederick
Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a glossShooter said:
optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
film lab.
60 years are the sort of figures that testers come up with for tests
based on archival storage conditions. If you do as I do, and put photos
on display behind glass, then you can soon see that supposedly
long-lasting media (my experience has been with Cibachrome) don't last
very long at all - a few years at best in the harsh UV in New Zealand.
I'm not looking for 60 (or 200) years - just a few years, and although
I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
Z
zakezuke
Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
I was under the impression that the inks, at one K and the CMY were the
same between the R2400 as the r1800, and the only major difference was
the r1800 offered different colors and the r2400 offered the light
inks. I agree that the bronzing with the epson inks can be solved with
a clear layer whether it be the gloss from the r1800, shallaque if you
want a fast dry or spar urathain if you want long lasting and don't
mind a slight blueing if fresh, or a slight yellowing if hummid.
But all of this is accidemic... some people just like dyes, whether it
be brozing or want something that looks like water color on fine art
paper. I have no clue why the OP wanted the r200 in a3, I naturaly
assumed they prefered dye which in epson near as i'm aware isn't an
option unless you hack something on one of their a3+ printer.
Assuming the application is archival prints, which I assume not since
they are looking at the r200, something like the hp vivera inks are
rated at 82+ years. I'm too lazy to drag up the see wilhelm-research
test. I've not tested these personaly but the output looks fab esp
with the 99 grey cart the shadows are top notch. The new canon inks
are reported to be an improvement over the old, but their high number
year mark is noted as being stored in an album, not behind glass.
Generally speaking your average pigment does outlast your average dye,
but there are excpetions to this generalization and many people my self
included prefer the look of dyes on glossy papers.
I was under the impression that the inks, at one K and the CMY were the
same between the R2400 as the r1800, and the only major difference was
the r1800 offered different colors and the r2400 offered the light
inks. I agree that the bronzing with the epson inks can be solved with
a clear layer whether it be the gloss from the r1800, shallaque if you
want a fast dry or spar urathain if you want long lasting and don't
mind a slight blueing if fresh, or a slight yellowing if hummid.
But all of this is accidemic... some people just like dyes, whether it
be brozing or want something that looks like water color on fine art
paper. I have no clue why the OP wanted the r200 in a3, I naturaly
assumed they prefered dye which in epson near as i'm aware isn't an
option unless you hack something on one of their a3+ printer.
Assuming the application is archival prints, which I assume not since
they are looking at the r200, something like the hp vivera inks are
rated at 82+ years. I'm too lazy to drag up the see wilhelm-research
test. I've not tested these personaly but the output looks fab esp
with the 99 grey cart the shadows are top notch. The new canon inks
are reported to be an improvement over the old, but their high number
year mark is noted as being stored in an album, not behind glass.
Generally speaking your average pigment does outlast your average dye,
but there are excpetions to this generalization and many people my self
included prefer the look of dyes on glossy papers.
F
frederick
There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply azakezuke said:
lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400. I haven't seen
gloss output from an R2400. R1800 prints with GO are not quite as
glossy as output from a dye printer like a canon iP9950. It's not a
huge difference. The pigment inks are no good with swellable polymer
extemely high gloss papers - not that I would want to use those papers
even with a dye printer because they have terrible durability.
IIRC, some of the dye inks from Canon are rated at around 100 years when
used on their premium paper. If Vivera inks on certain media are rated
at 82+ years, then be assured that is also under archival conditions.
J
Jon O'Brien
Just make sure you keep updating your storage medium!
Jon.
Z
zakezuke
There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
I guess you are correct... Looks like the R1800 takes the T054x20 Where
the R2400 takes the T059x20. I guess I never looked at the 3rd number
that closely before. But that would make sence... one doesn't have the
encapsulated pigments and the other does, would explain why the r2400
only shows minor bronzing, and I mean minor. Still looks nicer under a
coat of shallaque.
I generally take all estimates of lightfastness with a grain of salt,
but needless to say the HP Vivera dyes are very good on the scale of
fade resistance... Chances are the Ultra Chrome are a tad more
archival... chances are. But never the less watercolors are still a
perfectly acceptable medium to work with and I can't fault anyone for
going with dye... tends to look more consistant to me anyway rather
than encapulated powerers or even r1800 with it's gloss optimizer...
which the output to me tends to look like a decal afixed to paper.
But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
I guess you are correct... Looks like the R1800 takes the T054x20 Where
the R2400 takes the T059x20. I guess I never looked at the 3rd number
that closely before. But that would make sence... one doesn't have the
encapsulated pigments and the other does, would explain why the r2400
only shows minor bronzing, and I mean minor. Still looks nicer under a
coat of shallaque.
I generally take all estimates of lightfastness with a grain of salt,
but needless to say the HP Vivera dyes are very good on the scale of
fade resistance... Chances are the Ultra Chrome are a tad more
archival... chances are. But never the less watercolors are still a
perfectly acceptable medium to work with and I can't fault anyone for
going with dye... tends to look more consistant to me anyway rather
than encapulated powerers or even r1800 with it's gloss optimizer...
which the output to me tends to look like a decal afixed to paper.
But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
F
frederick
zakezuke said:
The Vivera inks rate ok for display behind glass. They are only going
to last on swellable polymer papers, so fine art or watercolour papers
aren't a great idea, and as you have probably found out, swellable
polymer papers have no water resistance and are in the "handle with
care" category unless protected. In fact, WIR didn't bother to test the
8750 on other than HP swellable polymer gloss and semi-gloss papers.
Testing the Vivera prints unframed is a bit of a futile exercise IMO -
as a displayed print will get destroyed by water damage in most
environments long before it fades.
You might want to look at the comparison of the designjet 130 "bare
bulb" test on photo matte paper of 14 years, vs the R1800 on matte paper
of 65 or 70 years on two papers tested. Divide the result by a factor
of X to get what you expect or hope for, if you think WIR are optimists
(as I do). I don't expect dye to last more than a couple of years at
best on anything other than swellable polymer OEM paper.
The R1800 prints on various papers rate much higher, and very
importantly, they have moderate to high water resistance.
The epson pigment prints are not just (more than) a tad more archival,
they are far more durable in all circumstances, and allow for printing
on a wide range of media.
Not so much when it's dry, and if considered so on some media, then
apply GO to the border.
Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
F
Fred
frederick said:
So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
still listed, anymore???
rm
F
frederick
oops - I did say that....Fred said:
add "except for the 1290s"
S
Shooter
frederick said:
True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
bronzing although much reduced, but still there. Very nice if you want to
get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new Epson, I
don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink so
for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off both
printers and there is still bronzing. When you say the two you quote as
giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs from
a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with these
improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
processed in a lab.
When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film or
digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a film
camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many respects.
if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for the
job.
J
Jon O'Brien
I'd say the only major shortcoming is bit-depth. In high contrast
situations that is a considerable drawback. In most other respects, when
compared with 35mm film cameras, the advantages far outweigh the
disadvantages in my opinion, even at the lower- to mid-range.
Jon.
F
frederick
Shooter said:
With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
held up on the surace.
Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
expensive than the R1800.
I disagree.
Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800."
(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
F
Fred
frederick said:
It wouldn't have surprised me if that had occurred.
rm
A
Arthur Entlich
In general, "photo" printers which use both high and low color load inks
tend to be designed to print with larger "dots".
The R1800 uses all full load color inks (adding red and blue to the mix)
so it works better with smaller dots.
So, in general photo printers use up more ink.
Art
tend to be designed to print with larger "dots".
The R1800 uses all full load color inks (adding red and blue to the mix)
so it works better with smaller dots.
So, in general photo printers use up more ink.
Art