Epson printers - 2400 vs. 4800 ??

Gordon Moat wrote:


HEY YOUR KEYBOARD IS BROKEN . . . THE CAPLOCKS KEY IS STUCK!


His keyboard is not broken.
His brain (term loosely used) is stuck-on-stupid.
Frank

In article . net,
Nicholas O. Lindan writes
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote

You don't need to trade one for the other

Emphasis on "You".

And then:

Resolution where its needed and fine tone where its needed

You mean like trading one for the other?

The difference being that *you* don't need to do it, the algorithm
delivers resolution where there is detail in the image and fine tone
where there are fine tones. Your statement implied that a choice had to
be made between resolution and tonal quality - it is a dynamic process
across the image and the number of pixels per inch is *NOT* reduced.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Well, certainly not the ones mentioned below which are wide carriage
professional printers costing thousands of dollars.

But to be more serious, you raise a very good question, to which the
answer is - it depends. Although the learning curve is getting a bit
less steep, if you aren't interested in having the personal control
factors, if you aren't printing a ton of prints, where even small
savings add up, if you are either nearby a store or have internet
access, then it may be hard to justify.

You have to pay for the printer, software, wear and tear on the
computer, inks paper, and waste in getting the print right. It also
costs time and for some, frustration.

Just the other day, I was speaking to someone about this, and I
mentioned that the photo industry has discovered how to re-engage
digital photographers by offering very competitively priced prints. The
nice thing is that even going to a relatively non-professional lab can
provide reasonable results, as things become more automated, and the
worst that happens is they have to reprint for you. There are no longer
original negs or slides to ruin during processing or handling.

So, unless you enjoy the creative process, you may be better off having
it done for you.

Art

Paul Rubin wrote:

Arthur Entlich writes:

cartridges. Epson uses 8 cartridges in the 4000. They also use 8 in
the 4800, 7800, 9800. The 4000 uses CcMmYKKk, the two uppercase K's
are for the photo black and the matte black, as you state....


So when all is said and done, how do these epson prints compare with
Fuji Frontier prints? I can get those done at my local walgreens for
something like 3 bucks for an 8x10. I'm wondering if there's really
any reason (other than perhaps risque shots or something like that)
for a low-volume home user to buy a photo printer.

Yes, Bill, "another person" doesn't like me... but he's back in two
groups I regularly frequent, isn't he? In fact, he seems to have a
posting right under yours here on comp.periphs.printers... You know
what, there are at least a half dozen people on this very group who I
know don't like my politics; think that bothers me? They too have
detractors (besides me) in numerous other groups.

After one person on another list I am on didn't like something I wrote
and suggested I leave, I ran a survey asking people to let me know via
private mail if they found my presence helpful on the group. My mailbox
was overrun with over one hundred emails begging me to stay, and many
had some pretty nasty things to say about the guy who instigated the
situation. I got just two people who responded with anything but praise.
One was noncommittal, and he was new to the group, and the other was
the original person in question. So you see Bill, I really am beyond
worrying about a few detractors, since every group has them.

I'm flattered that you stand on guard to lambaste me when I make a
factual error. Obviously, you think my opinions have great sway, And
the fact that I can so bother a couple of you to the point of having you
leave a group because of me, well, that's seems to make me either pretty
powerful, or someone pretty thin skinned.

I know you and "another person" both have costly Nikon film scanners
which I spent time warning people about, along with several other Nikon
models, due to fairly considerable design defects and that bothers you,
but the information I provided was factual and accurate, verified by
other owners, and even finally acknowledged by Nikon (as much as they
ever admit to design defects, which isn't much). My ego is not connected
to my purchases of tech equipment, and I am quite willing to point out
the design issues or customer service issues relating to products I own,
as well. It's a service to the community when people can find out
before they make the purchase what they may be in for.

By the way, my Polaroid Sprintscan 4000+ is doing just fine, thank you,
and the company that made it is still in business, and support is even
offered by the company that sold it.

Sadly, the core Polaroid Corp did go "belly up" as you call it, because
they were a company based on the customer service model, and today that
isn't what investors are after. They want quick bucks. Polaroid made
two mistakes. They didn't respond fast enough to the move to digital,
and they continued to believe in the concept of customer service over
corporate profits. When you work in a world where everyone is a shark,
it's hard to survive as a lone porpoise.

And again, just to be clear, I own and use many thousands of dollars of
Nikon camera bodies and lenses, and most have been amazingly reliable
and of good quality, so I would hardly say I had it out for Nikon. I'm
even considering buying a Nikon D-SLR (since I own all those lenses).
Similarly, if I truly had it "out" for Epson, I would not spend time
defending the product line, owning their products and spending hours
every day helping people who use their printers, without any financial
compensation. However, that doesn't mean I will shut up about their
design issues. I have been in the guts of enough Epson printers to know
where the good engineering stops and the "stick it to the consumer" begins.

As to what I accomplish, you wouldn't have a clue, so again I take no
offense to your ignorance. It ain't all about the money Bill.

Art

Bill Hilton wrote:

Arthur Entlich whines ...

Thanks for the correction Bill. I bow to your knowledge. ...
But you, in all your "wisdom" couldn't hold your typing fingers
without making a completely uncalled for, and statistically
inaccurate statement about me, could you?


No I couldn't, because for about five years I've thought you were one
of the most annoying clueless jackasses on the newsgroups Arthur. You
seem to have it in for companies that are market leaders and drone on
endlessly about all the things they are doing wrong while you've never
actually accomplished anything yourself, whether it's Epson printers or
Nikon scanners (how's that Polaroid Sprintscan doing for you, now that
they went belly up?). I just ignore your endless opiniated replies but
when you get your facts wrong I'll feel free to jump in, whether you
like it or not.

And it's not just me who feels that way, another person in this thread
once told me he found you so replusive that he would sometimes abandon
a group when you entered. Why is that?

Bill

If your 1270 continues to give you good service, I'm not suggesting
anything. However, if the heads are as gooped up as you suggest, it
will probably eventually begin to leave streaks and marks on some
heavier weight papers. My experience is that early maintenance can save
time later on.

As to what is holding things together on this particular model, it may
be very tight tolerances on your particular unit, or you live in a high
humidity area. Maybe the waste ink pads are giving off so much vapor,
it keeps the heads from drying out.

I have this one NiCd rechargeable AA battery. It came from a set of
about a dozen , the others of which are long ago recycled because they
either started to leak, or would no longer hold a charge. But this one
seems invincible, and I have no idea why. It was used similarly, and it
was one of a group of the same brand, all of which became useless.

Who knows why? (that's rhetorical ;-))

Art

Mark² wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Mark² wrote:


Arthur Entlich wrote:


Mark² wrote:

Your 1270 probably just needs a good cleaning of the cleaning
station. The purge pump may be all gummed up as well. Cleaning the
cleaning station and ink wiper can make a improvement in the
cleaning cycles as well.


Actually, there is no problem with my 1270. To the contrary, it has
never clogged in over 6 years, which is why I mentioned it in this
thread. Perhaps you missed that part...



No, I saw that part, but I am not convinced that is what is keeping
the head from clogging.


Neither am I, though I don't have a better explanation... Do you?
I have done absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, and yet it has never
ever clogged.


Interestingly, it remains
wet...NEVER drying--even after long periods on non-use. This means
that instead of "cleaning" the head, it simply wipes goo around and
ONTO the head. Perhaps this is partly what's helped my 1270
keep from clogging over the years...because the head can't dry
out/clog when it's parked in big mess of wet goop!

The cleaning station shouldn't be that gooped up. I'm surprised you
don't get some black streaks on the paper surface if it has any
variation in it. Your printer's waste ink pads may well be so
saturated that the ink has nowhere to flow to (not so much that it
needs capillary action or wicking, but that it needs a bit more
distance to flow out of the waste ink tube, and that distance has
been reduced as the pads become saturated.


As far as I'm concerned...it doesn't "need" anything at all.
It doesn't streak...and it doesn't clog.
If it ain't broke...why are you suggesting I fix it?



I have
a whole storage room filled to the brim with old high-tech
products.


Me too. -I just threw a bunch of it away as I cleadned the garage
yesterday.


The problem is we pretty much all have a basement/closet/room filled
with lower high tech, and eventually it's all going to be tossed,
but where? Consumers, governments and manufacturers need to work
together of reducing and eliminating this spiral.


California's lame answer to this was to start slapping people with
disposal taxes when they purchase monitors and the like. Stupid
part is...they give no indication of any particular mechanism this
money creates for the actual disposal!
That's new for ya... It may...or (more likely) may not...go to
anything related to it supposed reason for being imposed.



Alberta Canada has a similar law, but I believe the money is being
earmarked for take back, take apart and recycle programs. Up front
money isn't a bad idea, part of the cost of the product existing, is
the reduction of the product back into parts that aren't harmful to
nature.
There certainly should be money earmarked to make sure the monies
collected are reinvented in recycling programs that work.


It saddens me to see so much "valuable" stuff get dumped. The items
were leading edge at one point, and people paid big money to be "on
top" with this stuff. The amount of money I have spent on storage
media and devices and memory, all completely obsolete now, is
sickening... I try not to think about it!



It kills me too, except that I then remind myself of all I couldn't
have done without it at the time.
It's sort of like gasoline. You can look back at all the gas you've
burned over the years...having nothing to show for it...but the
alternative would have been going nowhere all those years.
Wasted money? Nah. Really just money spent to get where we're
going...both on the road, and on the computer.

(But OK...on the other hand...it still is a little depressing!)
-Mark

Sometimes when I think not just about the money, but the time I spent
learning to use the cumbersome software So and hardware, I'm not sure
I'm that far ahead. Newer users have products that have less steep
learning curves, so in some ways they may catch up with those who
lived through the dark years.

Art


Perhaps...

I have no "personal thing" with Bill, he has a "personal thing" with me,
which is pretty obvious. He came out swinging, not me. I personally
could care less what Bill thinks. His post quoted below shows what a
"good guy" he is.

He just doesn't like his "kit" being criticized, even when there is
documented proof of problems. He probably never bought a car he didn't
like, either.

People who are overly attached to brand loyalty, to the point where it
influences their ability to see defects, do no favors to others who may
be considering buying the products.

I haven't had anything to do with Bill in YEARS, in fact, I really have
never had anything to do with Bill, period. I was critical of a product
he happens to own, and he took it personally. One thing for sure, he
holds a good grudge, however, even when he's wrong.

Art

Mark² wrote:

Bill Hilton wrote:

Arthur Entlich whines ...

Thanks for the correction Bill. I bow to your knowledge. ...
But you, in all your "wisdom" couldn't hold your typing fingers
without making a completely uncalled for, and statistically
inaccurate statement about me, could you?

No I couldn't, because for about five years I've thought you were one
of the most annoying clueless jackasses on the newsgroups Arthur. You
seem to have it in for companies that are market leaders and drone on
endlessly about all the things they are doing wrong while you've never
actually accomplished anything yourself, whether it's Epson printers
or Nikon scanners (how's that Polaroid Sprintscan doing for you, now
that they went belly up?). I just ignore your endless opiniated
replies but when you get your facts wrong I'll feel free to jump in,
whether you like it or not.

And it's not just me who feels that way, another person in this thread
once told me he found you so replusive that he would sometimes abandon
a group when you entered. Why is that?

Bill


I don't know the history involved with the two of you...but to Arthur:
-If you've got a thing with Bill, it must be a "personal thing," because
I've never seen anything in/from Bill (save for this little heated exchange)
that would indicate anything other than Bill being a perfect gentleman.

I don't know you, Arthur, and so won't comment with regard to you.
What I can say, though, is that around here, Bill is one of the good guys.

-Mark

Prime wrote:

measekite posted the exciting message news:vUUwf.26250
:



IN TEXAS THEY HAVE DELL




In Uranus we have meankite.


I THOUGHT DA BEEFER WAS FROM YOURANUS

Prime wrote:

measekite posted the exciting message news:n9Vwf.26256
:



I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT WALGREEN, COSTCO ETC PRINTS A LIGHTER WEIGHT AND
TEND TO CURL. THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHEN USING A HIGH QUALITY
COSTCO/KIRKLAND, EPSON OR CANON PHOTO PAPER PRO MEDIA.




I don't know how you could say that. You are against relabled supplies. We
certainly don't know who really makes the Kirkland paper. In fact, other
posts suggest that the 4x6 size is made by a different company than the
Letter size. They are relabeled. You don't know what you are getting so you
are stupid if you think this is a good idea.

Perhaps your problem in browntown is affecting your reasoning.


OOZING FROM DA EARS

Prime wrote:

measekite posted the exciting message news:0aVwf.26257
:


YOU ALSO GET A DRAMATIC BOOST IN END RESULT BECAUSE YOU CAN SPEND THE
TIME TO EDIT THE PHOTO.




You would have a dramatic boost in your butt-end result if you unclogged
yourself.


IN FAT U ATED

In message , David
Nebenzahl writes
Kennedy McEwen spake thus:

In article w9bvf.7874$V.6727@fed1read04, Mark²
writes

I contend that there isn't ANY media capable of showing a benefit of
dpi that high.
There are plenty of such media, they just aren't papers. :-)

Like what--stainless steel? Precision-buffed to a high gloss?

Printed circuit boards?

--
Timothy