Anyone here use an Epson 4800 printer?

If so, are you 100% happy with that Epson printer, model 4800?

(...or more realistically, 90% happy) ;-)

I am seriously contemplating buying the $2,500 "Pro" version of that
high-end Epson printer, however I have several questions before I shell
out that extreme amount of cash.

I am looking for final printer output that can't be distinguished from
a regular photographic print, both viewed close up.

Is that of quality from a printer an unreasonable expectation?

If unrealistic, then how close can printer output come to duplicating
real photographic prints?

Appreciate any advice, either positive or negative.

Mark-

--
Really naive and clueless digital newbie here, with
my very first digital "outfit", a Canon 5D body
with a fair assortment of lenses.

Mark Conrad wrote:
If so, are you 100% happy with that Epson printer, model 4800?

(...or more realistically, 90% happy) ;-)

I am seriously contemplating buying the $2,500 "Pro" version of that
high-end Epson printer, however I have several questions before I shell
out that extreme amount of cash.

Why do you want the "pro" version, I doubt that you really want or
need the RIP software that you pay extra for?

I would not call it a high-end printer, more like the bottom of the
commercial tier.

I am looking for final printer output that can't be distinguished from
a regular photographic print, both viewed close up.

Most people could not tell the difference. I think the Epson K3 color
gamut is a bit wider than a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier printer.
Certainly better looking shadow details.

Is that of quality from a printer an unreasonable expectation?

If unrealistic, then how close can printer output come to duplicating
real photographic prints?

Appreciate any advice, either positive or negative.

The ink is expensive, especially when you are worrying about 8 or 9
different inks.

The cleaning tank is a rip off. $40 for a cotton/poly sponge and an
Epson chip.

Are you really planning on printing much over 13"? If not consider the
R1800 or R2400.

Like any other Epson after you buy it you need to keep using it or you
will have clogged head problems.

FYI - the first set of ink cartridges will be half emptied, just doing
the initial ink charging.

True borderless prints are limited to using roll paper. Margins are
0.5" at the top, 0.55" at the bottom and 0" on the sides for
sheet paper.

If you are just looking at a few big prints, take them to a local shop
and have them printed there and buy a smaller printer for "general
use".

The printer is heavy, 110 lbs without the ink and physically large,
make sure you have someplace to put it that is both strong enough and
large enough to hold it, and you have someone to help you move it. It
comes strapped to a pallet.

If using roll paper you will want to be able to get at the back side.

It is a great printer; just make sure it is too much of a printer for
what you will be using it to print.

Jim


Mark-

--
Really naive and clueless digital newbie here, with
my very first digital "outfit", a Canon 5D body
with a fair assortment of lenses.

In article ,
Mark Conrad wrote:

If so, are you 100% happy with that Epson printer, model 4800?

(...or more realistically, 90% happy) ;-)

I am seriously contemplating buying the $2,500 "Pro" version of that
high-end Epson printer, however I have several questions before I shell
out that extreme amount of cash.

I am looking for final printer output that can't be distinguished from
a regular photographic print, both viewed close up.

Is that of quality from a printer an unreasonable expectation?

If unrealistic, then how close can printer output come to duplicating
real photographic prints?

Appreciate any advice, either positive or negative.

Mark-

--
Really naive and clueless digital newbie here, with
my very first digital "outfit", a Canon 5D body
with a fair assortment of lenses.

I agree a lot with Jim Kramer, I bought the R1800 last weekend
deciding not to buy the 4800 for several reasons. Basically I got tired
of running to photo labs and redoing digital files to get the prints
correct. The issue that ultimately made up my mind is: I would rather
rarely need 16x20 for customer work. I also have a darkroom and can print
16x20 color cheaper. I needed the printer for occasional use of
retouching and composition. Realistically the 4800 &K3 ink is good if
you need B&W-but supposedly the R1800 is better for color work.
I would never need B&W as I never intend to print B&W other than
on Silver paper.


The top end resolution of the R1800 is higher, but beyond a point
I think its hype. Like Jim I question the need for the Rip-thats useful
if you intend to batch imagery- intending to drop and print all images
from a single shoot -like a wedding. That was one reason I might have
liked the 4800- because i do shoot weddings-ultimately it was the cost
that decided for me, and I am really happy so far with this printer- I am
sure which ever you decide you will be like wise happy and somewhat
astounded by the results.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On 5/7/06 11:48 AM, in article
, "JimKramer"
wrote:


Mark Conrad wrote:
If so, are you 100% happy with that Epson printer, model 4800?

(...or more realistically, 90% happy) ;-)

I am seriously contemplating buying the $2,500 "Pro" version of that
high-end Epson printer, however I have several questions before I shell
out that extreme amount of cash.

Why do you want the "pro" version, I doubt that you really want or
need the RIP software that you pay extra for?

I would not call it a high-end printer, more like the bottom of the
commercial tier.

I am looking for final printer output that can't be distinguished from
a regular photographic print, both viewed close up.

Most people could not tell the difference. I think the Epson K3 color
gamut is a bit wider than a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier printer.
Certainly better looking shadow details.

Is that of quality from a printer an unreasonable expectation?

If unrealistic, then how close can printer output come to duplicating
real photographic prints?

Appreciate any advice, either positive or negative.

The ink is expensive, especially when you are worrying about 8 or 9
different inks.

The cleaning tank is a rip off. $40 for a cotton/poly sponge and an
Epson chip.

Are you really planning on printing much over 13"? If not consider the
R1800 or R2400.

Like any other Epson after you buy it you need to keep using it or you
will have clogged head problems.

FYI - the first set of ink cartridges will be half emptied, just doing
the initial ink charging.

True borderless prints are limited to using roll paper. Margins are
0.5" at the top, 0.55" at the bottom and 0" on the sides for
sheet paper.

If you are just looking at a few big prints, take them to a local shop
and have them printed there and buy a smaller printer for "general
use".

The printer is heavy, 110 lbs without the ink and physically large,
make sure you have someplace to put it that is both strong enough and
large enough to hold it, and you have someone to help you move it. It
comes strapped to a pallet.

If using roll paper you will want to be able to get at the back side.

It is a great printer; just make sure it is too much of a printer for
what you will be using it to print.

Jim


Mark-

--
Really naive and clueless digital newbie here, with
my very first digital "outfit", a Canon 5D body
with a fair assortment of lenses.

I agree with most of what Jim said; I will add these additional comments.
Regarding shelling out the extra money for the RIP that Epson supplies, if
you want/need a RIP take a look other RIPs available, like Colorbyte's
ImagePrint.
If you plan on doing a lot of switching back and forth between photo black
and matte black ink this may not be the printer for you. Making the switch
wastes a lot of ink each time. There are some solutions for this, but that
is another subject.
Unless you already have sufficient table space for a printer of this size
and weight, you may want to look at the custom cart that Epson sells. This
cart is such a perfect fit that when the printer is on it the whole thing
looks like one unit.
The quality of work produced by this printer is tops as is the mechanical
build quality.
Chuck

I own a 2200 and a 4800. One is a professional printer and the other is
not. If you want to print on photo papers and fine art papers, you
really need two printers. The cost of changing between photo black ink
and matte black ink is $50. However, the 4800, 7800 and 9800 are the
most ecconomical printers as far as ink usage or cost per square inch
is concerned.

The output of the 4800 is exceptional. I do not us any RIP. However, I
did opt for an Ethernet card so I could place the printer any at
distance from the CPU.

I am extremely happy with the price and service I received from IT
Supplies. I plan to purchase another 4800 from them this summer.

Gene

If you do not understand the issues involved it would be unwise to spend
that much money on a printer of this type.
I would suggest you obtain, if you do not already have them, a monitor
calibrating device (Spyder, Moncaco), CS2/Elements and a less expensive
printer (Espson 1280/1800 or smaller carriage variant) and master color
management before attempting large size printing. You will save a great deal
of money in the long run.

Mark Conrad wrote:

If so, are you 100% happy with that Epson printer, model 4800?

(...or more realistically, 90% happy) ;-)

I am seriously contemplating buying the $2,500 "Pro" version of that
high-end Epson printer, however I have several questions before I shell
out that extreme amount of cash.

I am looking for final printer output that can't be distinguished from
a regular photographic print, both viewed close up.

Is that of quality from a printer an unreasonable expectation?

That depends on how much of an expert the viewer is. I know exactly
what to look for, but without an experienced eye most people probably
wouldn't notice.

I don't consider a "regular photographic print" as something I want to
aim for.

If unrealistic, then how close can printer output come to
duplicating real photographic prints?

It's hard to answer that. They're different, that's all. I like
high-end inkjet output. You'll probably get a wider gamut,
particularly in the reds, and you'll definitely get higher resolution.
With custom printer profiles you'll get really accurate colour, too.
You'll also be able to print on a wide range of substrates, which will
sometimes be useful.

Andrew.

In article .com,
JimKramer wrote:

It is a great printer; just make sure it is too much of a printer for
what you will be using it to print.

Thanks for the great replies.

Perhaps I had better elaborate somewhat on my requirements.

Initially, I thrashed around, considering a drum Iris printer, but the
cost, maintenance, fading inks, and other problems turned me off.

Absolutely no banding with an Iris, and excellent ink selection if you
do not mind fading.g

Then I considered turning my photo' files over to an offset
lithographer, but the cost for short runs of say 200 was high, and the
color was not all that great. Excellent absence of all traces of
banding, however, which is hard to achieve on an ink jet printer.

None of the above rambling is first hand experience, just going by what
I read, which may or may not be accurate.



My expected audience will be"seminars" of hard core PC users, who I
hope to "dazzle" with Mac video and still presentations, "slick"
brochures, pamphlets, of as high a quality as I can afford - - -
without informing them of the cost of my gear, naturally.

The aim is a volunteer effort on my part to "sway" a small number of
them into trying a Mac as a 2nd computer, to add to their existing
productivity. A public service, as it were.

Years ago, there was a two-store chain here called "Connecting Point",
that sold new Macs and Mac software, had free seminars in-store to help
new Mac users - - - they were doing a landslide business, I bought
several Macs there myself.

Apple, in their infinite wisdom, took the small chain to court and shut
them down. A 200 square mile area of northern california reverted to
100% PCs and Windows shops, who now have a vested interest in keeping
Macs out. Lots of money to be made here servicing PCs which become
clogged up with malware of all kinds.

Anyhow, that is my "audience", I will be lucky if I do not get stoned
by them.

Don't get me wrong, I use PCs myself when the situation warrants, but I
personally find Macs easier to use and maintain.


Back To Business
*************

Question -

Is there a noticable difference in the results produced by lower end
consumer printers in the $100/300 range, as contrasted to higher cost
printers around $2,000

I have so far bought lower priced printers of all makes, and have been
disappointed by the noticable "banding" in clear areas like the blue
sky. (i.e. the thin overlap stripe that gets sprayed twice with ink)

This thin stripe is especially noticable in off-white areas that do not
receive much ink, noticable banding even when high grade photo stock is
used.

At least to me it is noticable, others may not be bothered by it.

Iris printers are not afflicted by this "overlap" banding, because they
spray the entire page edge-to-edge instead of printing in half inch
wide swaths like ordinary ink jet printers do.

....but Iris printers are lousy in many other respects, so I hear.

There also seems to be noticable "clumping" of ink dots in areas of the
print that should be even and clear of any sorts of "clumps".


As Regards Clogged Nozzles
*******************
I assume there is no technical way of preventing ink nozzles from
partially clogging, other than operating the printer continuously.

Mark-

"Mark Conrad" wrote in message
...

Question -

Is there a noticable difference in the results produced by lower end
consumer printers in the $100/300 range, as contrasted to higher cost
printers around $2,000

I have an Epson P2200.


I have so far bought lower priced printers of all makes, and have been
disappointed by the noticable "banding" in clear areas like the blue
sky. (i.e. the thin overlap stripe that gets sprayed twice with ink)

This thin stripe is especially noticable in off-white areas that do not
receive much ink, noticable banding even when high grade photo stock is
used.

I keep looking at my photos given your concern for "banding" and I cannot
detect anything. I have a feeling an Epson R1800 or R2400 should suit your
needs fine.

My Mom has printed brochures herself for years for her gallery and the ones
from her last two printers have looked completely professional.


At least to me it is noticable, others may not be bothered by it.

Iris printers are not afflicted by this "overlap" banding, because they
spray the entire page edge-to-edge instead of printing in half inch
wide swaths like ordinary ink jet printers do.

...but Iris printers are lousy in many other respects, so I hear.

There also seems to be noticable "clumping" of ink dots in areas of the
print that should be even and clear of any sorts of "clumps".


As Regards Clogged Nozzles
*******************
I assume there is no technical way of preventing ink nozzles from
partially clogging, other than operating the printer continuously.


That has been a problem with my P2200. And I don't think there is any
improvement with the R1800 and R2400.

Greg

In article ,
Mark Conrad wrote:


As Regards Clogged Nozzles
*******************
I assume there is no technical way of preventing ink nozzles from
partially clogging, other than operating the printer continuously.

Mark-

Just turn it on once a day.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com