To Epson 4000 or not to Epson 4000?

What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
more, he actually uses it).
Nobody

nobody writes:

What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
more, he actually uses it).

The print speed is lovely. The size is lovely. The price, well;
nothing's perfect.

There is no crime in liking square pictures. Some photos really want
to be square, which annoys me with my 35mm equipment :-).

The one thing about the 4000 that might bite you is that the Epson ink
cartridges say they should be used within 6 months of opening. How
much printing do you do? The 4000 can take two sizes of cartridges,
but even the small is more than 5 times bigger than the ones for the
little printers. (The ink's a lot cheaper in those big cartridges,
too; unless it expires on you.) I also haven't experimented with my
smaller printers with what happens if it does get that old. I'm sure
it doesn't instantly curdle on the 180th day or anything. And if you
do enough printing this may not be a consideration at all.

You can feed roll paper on the 2200, can't you? That would let you
print square pictures without wasting paper, at some additional
effort.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

nobody wrote:

What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
more, he actually uses it).
Nobody



Advantages:

* two black carts, should be good for BW printing
* good choice for printing on heavy, fine art matte papers
* pigment inks, inherent longevity
* excellent dot placement
* good user community
* rugged construction
* large ink carts (110 or 220 ml)

Disadvantages:

* permanent, non-removable heads
* pigment inks not optimal for glossy or satin papers
* pigment inks more prone to settling, clogging than dyes
* slow


You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
particularly if your preference runs to
glossy papers. Either of these will cost
substantially less than the Epson 4000.

If you like working on heavy, fine-art matte
papers, go with the Epson.

Right now, the Epson 4000 holds a unique
position in the market, for C sized prints
(17" wide.) The Designjet 130 does 24" wide,
and the DesignJet 90 will do 18" wide.

Epson is now "100% pigment ink" on all their
pro printers. HP is pushing a system of dye
inks with matching and proprietary HP media.
If you stick with the approved media, you
get an 82-year print longevity prediction
courtesy of Henry Wilhelm.

I'm almost certain the DesignJet 30 will
be considerably faster.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"rafeb" wrote in message
om...


You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
particularly if your preference runs to
glossy papers. Either of these will cost
substantially less than the Epson 4000.

I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.

Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.

These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
you bucks in ink costs.

Thanks, but how do the HP printers you refer to compare to the Epson 4000 in
terms of image or print quality?
Nobody


On 14/3/05 8:19 pm, in article
, "rafeb"
wrote:



nobody wrote:

What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
more, he actually uses it).
Nobody



Advantages:

* two black carts, should be good for BW printing
* good choice for printing on heavy, fine art matte papers
* pigment inks, inherent longevity
* excellent dot placement
* good user community
* rugged construction
* large ink carts (110 or 220 ml)

Disadvantages:

* permanent, non-removable heads
* pigment inks not optimal for glossy or satin papers
* pigment inks more prone to settling, clogging than dyes
* slow


You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
particularly if your preference runs to
glossy papers. Either of these will cost
substantially less than the Epson 4000.

If you like working on heavy, fine-art matte
papers, go with the Epson.

Right now, the Epson 4000 holds a unique
position in the market, for C sized prints
(17" wide.) The Designjet 130 does 24" wide,
and the DesignJet 90 will do 18" wide.

Epson is now "100% pigment ink" on all their
pro printers. HP is pushing a system of dye
inks with matching and proprietary HP media.
If you stick with the approved media, you
get an 82-year print longevity prediction
courtesy of Henry Wilhelm.

I'm almost certain the DesignJet 30 will
be considerably faster.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Thank you for the information, but have you compared the results from the HP
130 and the Epson 4000 in terms of image or print quality? How do they
compare?
Nobody


On 14/3/05 9:40 pm, in article , "Douglas"
wrote:


"rafeb" wrote in message
om...


You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
particularly if your preference runs to
glossy papers. Either of these will cost
substantially less than the Epson 4000.

I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.

Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.

These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
you bucks in ink costs.

nobody wrote:

Thank you for the information, but have you compared the results from the HP
130 and the Epson 4000 in terms of image or print quality? How do they
compare?


Both are excellent. You won't see any difference
in the detail without a loupe.

The HPs on glossy/satin paper will deliver better
Dmax. Scroll down the page below for closeup view
of shadow detail (HP vs Epson 4K.)

http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi031/HP_Designjet_30.html

[You'll need a well-calibrated monitor to see
the difference.]


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Take a look at the new Epson R1800, the wide carriage version of the
Epson R800. Better yet and cheaper is the Canon i9900 unless you are
selling your prints; then pigmented inks does offer some advantage.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

nobody writes:



What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
more, he actually uses it).



The print speed is lovely. The size is lovely. The price, well;
nothing's perfect.

There is no crime in liking square pictures. Some photos really want
to be square, which annoys me with my 35mm equipment :-).

The one thing about the 4000 that might bite you is that the Epson ink
cartridges say they should be used within 6 months of opening. How
much printing do you do? The 4000 can take two sizes of cartridges,
but even the small is more than 5 times bigger than the ones for the
little printers. (The ink's a lot cheaper in those big cartridges,
too; unless it expires on you.) I also haven't experimented with my
smaller printers with what happens if it does get that old. I'm sure
it doesn't instantly curdle on the 180th day or anything. And if you
do enough printing this may not be a consideration at all.

You can feed roll paper on the 2200, can't you? That would let you
print square pictures without wasting paper, at some additional
effort.

Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and just
as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to pick
which is which.


"nobody" wrote in message
...
Thanks, but how do the HP printers you refer to compare to the Epson 4000
in
terms of image or print quality?
Nobody

"Douglas" writes:

Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and just
as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to pick
which is which.

What's your evidence for just as long-lasting? The Wilhelm Research
Institute numbers show it lasting less than half as long.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/