Epson 4000 down-sides? (Printer)

I'm interested in the 4000, but I'm wondering what the DOWN sides of it are
according to the experiences of those who own/use it.

I know all the great stuff about it, so I'm primarily interested in the
"other side of the coin." What (if anything) bugs you about this device?

Thanks for any input!

From: "Mark M" mjmorgan(lowesteven number

I'm interested in the 4000, but I'm wondering what the DOWN sides of it are
according to the experiences of those who own/use it.

I know all the great stuff about it, so I'm primarily interested in the
"other side of the coin." What (if anything) bugs you about this device?

I've been using one since July and it's a wonderful printer. I also have a
2200 and printing the exact same files on the same paper type with the same
Ultrachrome inks I get better prints with the 4000 because the ICC profiles are
more accurate (and probably there are some improvements in the head design as
well).

I could go on about the good stuff but since you want the negatives I'll give
you a few minor whines and complaints, at least from my perspective ...

1) Epson is doing a sorry job of supporting the printer with 17x22" sheet
papers, which is the main reason I got it, to print 16x20". In particular
there is a lack of fine-art papers from Epson in this size. My favorite
fine-art paper is Epson's Somerset Velvet-Fine Art, which is incredible, but
it's only out in letter and 13x19" sheets.

Epson made a big deal about Ultrasmooth Fine Art but it's not available in
sheets in any sizes. I have a 17" x 50 ft roll but they recommend not using
the auto cutter since the paper is too thick so it's a hassle using it, plus
you get the curl. Also Epson hasn't brought out an accurate ICC profile for
this paper even though it has been out for several months. No excuse for not
providing ICC support.

I've been testing eleven different papers on the 4000 and there ARE some
excellent 17x22" fine art sheet papers available, especially Arches Infinity
and Hahnemeuhle Photo Rag, but they aren't quite up to Velvet-FA for my tastes.
Most of the high end paper companies are providing ICC profiles for papers
like these specifically for the 4000 and they work pretty well.

I'll probably go with the 316 gsm Hahny Photo Rag as my main 17x22" fine art
paper, with Epson's Enhanced Matte (available 17" wide only on rolls) for when
I don't want watercolor paper since it's similar to Ultrasmooth except for the
optical brightners and is about 20% the cost of Ultrasmooth ($54 for a 17" x
100 ft roll vs $237 for two 17" x 50 ft rolls of Ultrasmooth).

2) It won't print on papers smaller than either letter or 8x10" (I forget
which). I have some custom note cards using Moab Entrada fine art paper that
are 7x10" before folding over to 5x7" so I have to print them on the 2200.
Minor problem for most people, unless you are wanting to run off 4x6's or 5x7's
on a regular basis. I think I saw something on a forum about a way to "trick"
it into using smaller roll papers but I didn't pursue it since I still have the
2200.

3) The roll paper auto cutter only works on thin papers, not on the thicker
fine art ones I like to use.

4) For portraits we like to print on the Premium Luster paper and it's not
available in 17x22" sheets. The roll paper for Luster is only 16" wide instead
of 17". What were they thinking here? The half inch border makes it much
easier to handle the print and mount it safely, I feel. Not that we get many
orders for 16x20" wide portraits (LOL) but it would be nice to have.

5) You need 14 mm space on the bottom for the printer to grab the paper or
slightly more than half an inch (12.5 mm is .5", roughly). This means you
cannot print a centered 8x10" print on letter paper (8.5 x 11.5") without
losing 1.5 mm on certain papers. Some papers let you print beyond this (with a
warning about a possible decrease in quality at the edges) while other papers
won't let you do it at all. Bummer.

Other than these gripes it's a super printer. If you want to print 16x20's by
all means get one and start testing fine art papers. If you want to do mostly
smaller prints you might be better off with the 2200.

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M" mjmorgan(lowesteven number

I'm interested in the 4000, but I'm wondering what the DOWN sides of it
are
according to the experiences of those who own/use it.

I know all the great stuff about it, so I'm primarily interested in the
"other side of the coin." What (if anything) bugs you about this device?

I've been using one since July and it's a wonderful printer. I also have
a
2200 and printing the exact same files on the same paper type with the
same
Ultrachrome inks I get better prints with the 4000 because the ICC
profiles are
more accurate (and probably there are some improvements in the head design
as
well).

I could go on about the good stuff but since you want the negatives I'll
give
you a few minor whines and complaints, at least from my perspective ...


~Excellent info snipped~

Other than these gripes it's a super printer. If you want to print
16x20's by
all means get one and start testing fine art papers. If you want to do
mostly
smaller prints you might be better off with the 2200.

Bill

This is **exactly** the kind of input/insight I was looking for.
Thank you very much, Bill.

I have been putting off buying the 2200 for many months because I know I'll
be frustrated with the size limitation. Even the 4000 could be too small
for some of the things I want to do, but I know I can't justify a larger
format device. -Been using my 1270 forever, but have always been
infuriatingly frustrated with the ever-present threat of fade/shift, etc.,
which essentially prevents me from ever offering prints to anyone for fear
of having to hand them a long list of "don'ts" for
rotection/mounting. -Totally unacceptable.

As with you, it has been my opinion that Epson is lacking in continuing
software/driver/ICC support for their *past printers. It's more
disappointing to hear that even this current model is under-supported.
Still, it seems this printer wins in this segment, so it's probably just a
matter of time for me.

Thanks again.
-Mark M

The 4000 uses the same inks and has many similarities to the printer
that I have been using for the past 18 months - the 7600. If you think
you need a larger printer, the 7600 costs only about 25% more than the
4000 and has a 24 inch carriage. There is a huge selection of
roll papers and they are much cheaper than paper for the 1290. Epson
support isn't great but they have provided an upgraded driver and
free third party profiles are available, although I find the Epson
profiles very accurate. The only problems with the 7600 are that it is
BIG - much larger than its photographs indicate. Epson provide a
substantial base wich is made of girders and, like the printer, is of
great quality. Also, if you change between matte and gloss blacks,
the printer purges ink from all ink lines ( the 4000 purges only the
black). This leads to a loss of about 2cc of ink per line.

The main thing to bear in mind is that these wide carriage printers
separate you from the rest of the crowd. It is fairly easy to get
your money back by selling prints and printing for other photographers
or artists.

Graham
"Mark M" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:adAkd.264420$a85.243830@fed1read04...

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M" mjmorgan(lowesteven number

I'm interested in the 4000, but I'm wondering what the DOWN sides of it
are
according to the experiences of those who own/use it.

I know all the great stuff about it, so I'm primarily interested in the
"other side of the coin." What (if anything) bugs you about this
device?

I've been using one since July and it's a wonderful printer. I also
have
a
2200 and printing the exact same files on the same paper type with the
same
Ultrachrome inks I get better prints with the 4000 because the ICC
profiles are
more accurate (and probably there are some improvements in the head
design
as
well).

I could go on about the good stuff but since you want the negatives I'll
give
you a few minor whines and complaints, at least from my perspective ...


~Excellent info snipped~

Other than these gripes it's a super printer. If you want to print
16x20's by
all means get one and start testing fine art papers. If you want to do
mostly
smaller prints you might be better off with the 2200.

Bill

This is **exactly** the kind of input/insight I was looking for.
Thank you very much, Bill.

I have been putting off buying the 2200 for many months because I know
I'll
be frustrated with the size limitation. Even the 4000 could be too small
for some of the things I want to do, but I know I can't justify a larger
format device. -Been using my 1270 forever, but have always been
infuriatingly frustrated with the ever-present threat of fade/shift, etc.,
which essentially prevents me from ever offering prints to anyone for fear
of having to hand them a long list of "don'ts" for
rotection/mounting. -Totally unacceptable.

As with you, it has been my opinion that Epson is lacking in continuing
software/driver/ICC support for their *past printers. It's more
disappointing to hear that even this current model is under-supported.
Still, it seems this printer wins in this segment, so it's probably just a
matter of time for me.

Thanks again.
-Mark M

"gsum" wrote in message
...
The 4000 uses the same inks and has many similarities to the printer
that I have been using for the past 18 months - the 7600. If you think
you need a larger printer, the 7600 costs only about 25% more than the
4000 and has a 24 inch carriage. There is a huge selection of
roll papers and they are much cheaper than paper for the 1290. Epson
support isn't great but they have provided an upgraded driver and
free third party profiles are available, although I find the Epson
profiles very accurate. The only problems with the 7600 are that it is
BIG - much larger than its photographs indicate. Epson provide a
substantial base wich is made of girders and, like the printer, is of
great quality. Also, if you change between matte and gloss blacks,
the printer purges ink from all ink lines ( the 4000 purges only the
black). This leads to a loss of about 2cc of ink per line.

The main thing to bear in mind is that these wide carriage printers
separate you from the rest of the crowd. It is fairly easy to get
your money back by selling prints and printing for other photographers
or artists.

I will take a look at that.
Thank you.
I'm curious to know what the smallest media this huge printer can handle as
well, simply to understand if it is sufficient by itself, or whether I'd
need to retain a smaller format device. Also whether it uses the same
cartridges as the 4000, or some sort of bulk ink loader system. --I'll
google on this, but am really intested in this actual experience
information.
Thank you very much for your input.
-Mark



Graham
"Mark M" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:adAkd.264420$a85.243830@fed1read04...

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M" mjmorgan(lowesteven number

I'm interested in the 4000, but I'm wondering what the DOWN sides of
it
are
according to the experiences of those who own/use it.

I know all the great stuff about it, so I'm primarily interested in
the
"other side of the coin." What (if anything) bugs you about this
device?

I've been using one since July and it's a wonderful printer. I also
have
a
2200 and printing the exact same files on the same paper type with the
same
Ultrachrome inks I get better prints with the 4000 because the ICC
profiles are
more accurate (and probably there are some improvements in the head
design
as
well).

I could go on about the good stuff but since you want the negatives
I'll
give
you a few minor whines and complaints, at least from my perspective
....


~Excellent info snipped~

Other than these gripes it's a super printer. If you want to print
16x20's by
all means get one and start testing fine art papers. If you want to
do
mostly
smaller prints you might be better off with the 2200.

Bill

This is **exactly** the kind of input/insight I was looking for.
Thank you very much, Bill.

I have been putting off buying the 2200 for many months because I know
I'll
be frustrated with the size limitation. Even the 4000 could be too
small
for some of the things I want to do, but I know I can't justify a larger
format device. -Been using my 1270 forever, but have always been
infuriatingly frustrated with the ever-present threat of fade/shift,
etc.,
which essentially prevents me from ever offering prints to anyone for
fear
of having to hand them a long list of "don'ts" for
rotection/mounting. -Totally unacceptable.

As with you, it has been my opinion that Epson is lacking in continuing
software/driver/ICC support for their *past printers. It's more
disappointing to hear that even this current model is under-supported.
Still, it seems this printer wins in this segment, so it's probably just
a
matter of time for me.

Thanks again.
-Mark M

"Mark ²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
newsaFkd.268130$a85.103312@fed1read04...

"gsum" wrote in message
...
The 4000 uses the same inks and has many similarities to the printer
that I have been using for the past 18 months - the 7600. If you think
you need a larger printer, the 7600 costs only about 25% more than the
4000 and has a 24 inch carriage. There is a huge selection of
roll papers and they are much cheaper than paper for the 1290. Epson
support isn't great but they have provided an upgraded driver and
free third party profiles are available, although I find the Epson
profiles very accurate. The only problems with the 7600 are that it is
BIG - much larger than its photographs indicate. Epson provide a
substantial base wich is made of girders and, like the printer, is of
great quality. Also, if you change between matte and gloss blacks,
the printer purges ink from all ink lines ( the 4000 purges only the
black). This leads to a loss of about 2cc of ink per line.

The main thing to bear in mind is that these wide carriage printers
separate you from the rest of the crowd. It is fairly easy to get
your money back by selling prints and printing for other photographers
or artists.

I will take a look at that.
Thank you.
I'm curious to know what the smallest media

I found this page for anyone who is interested:
http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/QandA.html
Lots of good info on the 7600 and 9600 printers.

Mark ²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

"gsum" wrote in message
...

The 4000 uses the same inks and has many similarities to the
printer that I have been using for the past 18 months - the
7600. If you think you need a larger printer, the 7600 costs only
about 25% more than the 4000 and has a 24 inch carriage. There is a
huge selection of roll papers and they are much cheaper than paper
for the 1290. Epson support isn't great but they have provided an
upgraded driver and free third party profiles are available,
although I find the Epson profiles very accurate. The only problems
with the 7600 are that it is BIG - much larger than its photographs
indicate. Epson provide a substantial base wich is made of girders
and, like the printer, is of great quality. Also, if you change
between matte and gloss blacks, the printer purges ink from all ink
lines ( the 4000 purges only the black). This leads to a loss of
about 2cc of ink per line.

See "How to change from matte black to photo black without wasting
money and ink"
http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi013/Epson9600.html

No, I'm not recommending you do this: I'm just telling you it's there.

I'm curious to know what the smallest media this huge printer can
handle as well, simply to understand if it is sufficient by itself,
or whether I'd need to retain a smaller format device.

The 7600 is not good at small prints, and there's no stacked paper
tray -- you have to feed by hand. I do smaller sizes by printing a
number of jobs together on a single sheet and then cutting them apart.

Also whether it uses the same cartridges as the 4000, or some sort
of bulk ink loader system. --I'll google on this, but am really
intested in this actual experience information.

It uses the big ink cartridges, at a considerable saving. No problem
the you can even change a cartridge halfway through a job. The
printer stops, waits for the new cartridge, and then carries on. I
was amazed the first time I saw that.

Andrew.

Another quick point. If you decide to get a 7600, be sure to look
for any Epson promotional offers. At the time that I bought, Epson
were offering a choice of one of media packs for photo, general, art and
proofing at half price i.e. about 350 UKP. I chose the photo pack
which consisted of several 100ft rolls of photo paper, matte paper
and a spare set of ink carts. This has kept me happy for about a year
and have only needed to buy a couple of light cyan & light magenta
carts (these are used faster than other colours).
Epson also supplied a roll of outdoor banner paper (worth about
250 UKP) for filling out the registration card.
See the Epson site for promotions.

Also, take a look at poster board which costs about 70UKP (inc vat)
for 10 24x30 inch sheets. This is the cheapest way to get a very
spectacular image onto your wall as it looks good unframed. Poster
board has a coating which holds masses of detail and has a very fine
matte finish.

Graham


"Mark ²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
newsaFkd.268130$a85.103312@fed1read04...

"gsum" wrote in message
...
The 4000 uses the same inks and has many similarities to the printer
that I have been using for the past 18 months - the 7600. If you think
you need a larger printer, the 7600 costs only about 25% more than the
4000 and has a 24 inch carriage. There is a huge selection of
roll papers and they are much cheaper than paper for the 1290. Epson
support isn't great but they have provided an upgraded driver and
free third party profiles are available, although I find the Epson
profiles very accurate. The only problems with the 7600 are that it is
BIG - much larger than its photographs indicate. Epson provide a
substantial base wich is made of girders and, like the printer, is of
great quality. Also, if you change between matte and gloss blacks,
the printer purges ink from all ink lines ( the 4000 purges only the
black). This leads to a loss of about 2cc of ink per line.

The main thing to bear in mind is that these wide carriage printers
separate you from the rest of the crowd. It is fairly easy to get
your money back by selling prints and printing for other photographers
or artists.

I will take a look at that.
Thank you.
I'm curious to know what the smallest media this huge printer can handle
as
well, simply to understand if it is sufficient by itself, or whether I'd
need to retain a smaller format device. Also whether it uses the same
cartridges as the 4000, or some sort of bulk ink loader system. --I'll
google on this, but am really intested in this actual experience
information.
Thank you very much for your input.
-Mark



Graham
"Mark M" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:adAkd.264420$a85.243830@fed1read04...

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M" mjmorgan(lowesteven number

I'm interested in the 4000, but I'm wondering what the DOWN sides
of
it
are
according to the experiences of those who own/use it.

I know all the great stuff about it, so I'm primarily interested in
the
"other side of the coin." What (if anything) bugs you about this
device?

I've been using one since July and it's a wonderful printer. I also
have
a
2200 and printing the exact same files on the same paper type with
the
same
Ultrachrome inks I get better prints with the 4000 because the ICC
profiles are
more accurate (and probably there are some improvements in the head
design
as
well).

I could go on about the good stuff but since you want the negatives
I'll
give
you a few minor whines and complaints, at least from my perspective
...


~Excellent info snipped~

Other than these gripes it's a super printer. If you want to print
16x20's by
all means get one and start testing fine art papers. If you want to
do
mostly
smaller prints you might be better off with the 2200.

Bill

This is **exactly** the kind of input/insight I was looking for.
Thank you very much, Bill.

I have been putting off buying the 2200 for many months because I know
I'll
be frustrated with the size limitation. Even the 4000 could be too
small
for some of the things I want to do, but I know I can't justify a
larger
format device. -Been using my 1270 forever, but have always been
infuriatingly frustrated with the ever-present threat of fade/shift,
etc.,
which essentially prevents me from ever offering prints to anyone for
fear
of having to hand them a long list of "don'ts" for
rotection/mounting. -Totally unacceptable.

As with you, it has been my opinion that Epson is lacking in
continuing
software/driver/ICC support for their *past printers. It's more
disappointing to hear that even this current model is under-supported.
Still, it seems this printer wins in this segment, so it's probably
just
a
matter of time for me.

Thanks again.
-Mark M

From: "gsum"

The 4000 uses the same inks and has many similarities to the printer
that I have been using for the past 18 months - the 7600.

I *really* wanted to get the 7600 2 years ago but I didn't have the space for
it, and I like to print on papers using both matte and photo black inks and it
was prohibitively expensive to switch between them, so I waited. It helped
that LightJet print prices collapsed at about this time because so many
photographers bought 9600s and 7600s, so it cost about 1/3 as much to get a
good-sized LJ print as it had 2 years earlier.

if you change between matte and gloss blacks,
the printer purges ink from all ink lines ( the 4000 purges only the
black).

The 4000 has all 8 inks loaded at once and can switch between photo and matte
black apparently without any purging since both heads are available, as I
understand it. This is a big advantage if you use different types of paper.

The main thing to bear in mind is that these wide carriage printers
separate you from the rest of the crowd.

Yeah, I agree, they are a big step up from the 2200 crowd.

From: "Mark ²" mjmorgan(lowesteven number

Also whether it (7600/9600) uses the same
cartridges as the 4000, or some sort of bulk ink loader system.

The 4000 and the 7600/9600 all take the exact same carts, either the 110 ml or
220 ml ones (I think the Epson 2200 carts hold about 8 ml or so, for
comparison).

I know a couple of big-name photographers who have the 4000 and also the
earlier printers and both say they like the prints from the 4000 better. One
is George Lepp, who is a columnist for "Outdoor Photographer". He has a
digital lab for teaching students and told me the lab is equipped with twelve
2200s for the students plus a 9600 (44" wide), 7600 and a new 4000. I asked
him which produces the best prints and he said the 4000 ...

Also, author and artist John Paul Caponigro used a 9600 for a couple of years
and recently started using the 4000 as well. He seems to feel the 4000
benefits most from the slightly smaller droplet size and from improved color
management, especially in the way the driver interprets ICC profiles.

Caponigro recently wrote a review of the 4000 for Photo Techniques magazine and
sent a PDF copy to people on his newsletter list. If you want a copy send me
an emai (change .comedy to the obvious)l and I'll forward the .pdf to you (127
KB).

Bill