Re: Epson 7000 questions
Re: Epson 7000 questions
- Subject: Re: Epson 7000 questions
- From: Jan Steinman <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:26:40 -0800
From: paul guba <email@hidden>
So its the end of the year and my client said that they would like
to get a wide format printer.
I thought the 7000 because it is in their price range...
Yea, Epson is the Microsoft of the printer world. "Nobody gets fired
for buying Epson."
My client is a very particular photographer and image quality is the
most important
issue. So dithering and color are huge.
You said it isn't for proofing. Will this work be sold? Epson has had
lots of problems with longevity -- even with their new "we invented
archival" 200 year prints that some people are finding turn orange
after a short time in the atmosphere. This whole "archival orange"
debacle has prompted the foremost longevity tester to change their
test protocol!
Finally just to add to my confusion is there a better printer choice
in that price range?
I faced a similar decision, and spent over six months researching
printers. I went with a Roland FJ-50, introduced with wide-gamut
archival inks way back in 1997, when Epson's best was the StylusColor
800!
The "price range" is the only reason (IMHO) to stick with Epson. The
cheapest Roland is about the price of an Epson 9000 with RIP. But you
never know what you can do with 44" until you try. Bigger Is Better.
:-) If your client shoots anything larger than 35mm, he can benefit
from a printer this size.
Roland has much more history in this market than Epson: with wide
format printers, ink chemistry (they also make $750,000 offset
presses), and color managed workflow. An Epson 7000 is a scaled-up
consumer printer; a Roland FJ-42 is a scaled-down industrial printer.
They have a huge assortment of media available, all factory-profiled.
You can choose between pigment-based Hexachrome ink for widest gamut,
or a CcYMmK ink for best pastel gradation. (Their new GliceeMaker
uses eight inks for the best of both worlds.) You can pick an ink, a
substrate, a resolution, pick the profile, and have a lovely, useable
print, first time out. You can pick from several inexpensive papers
from 38 cents a square foot, to exquisite high-gloss film, to
traditional watercolor cotton rag, to exotics like translucent film,
vinyl scrim, canvas, waterproof Tyvek, polyester fabric, etc. -- all
factory-profiled.
I experiment with third-party substrates -- I'm even printing on some
paper *I* made from cotton rag trimming scraps -- but for critical
work, I use the Roland media because It Just Works.
And when comparing prices, remember to compare apples with apples --
the Roland comes with a RIP. Some point out that this still isn't a
fair comparison, because the Epson RIP is in hardware, but I actually
think this point goes for the Roland, because you can easily upgrade
your hardware as new computers come out. When I upgrade my main
machine, my old one becomes a "new" RIP for the Roland -- try that
with a dedicated Fiery.
Also, look into market acceptance. In Digital Fine Arts magazine,
about half the shops offering prints advertise that they use Rolands.
(Almost all of them still advertise Iris prints.) Only 10% or less
mention Epsons -- about the same as all others -- Encad, HP,
ColorSpan...
So if you're the kind of person who likes to fiddle with profiles,
get the Epson -- it will keep you employed doing menial tasks. If,
however, you want a happy client, and are confident enough in your
own ability to take the risk that your client might just learn to
print without you, take a look at the Roland.
What are some other solutions being presently Mac
based?
The Roland software RIP is available for either Mac or Wintel. I use
the Mac version. It's adequate for a dedicated machine, but it hogs
the processor. I wouldn't want to share other computing tasks with it
before MacOS X is out. (A used iMac for about $400 would run it
nicely.)
(I know there are ardent Epson fans on this list. A number of you may
have read my comments -- and responded -- before. I don't want to get
into it again. Failure to respond does not indicate acquiescence to
your point-of-view. :-)
--
: Jan Steinman <
mailto:email@hidden>
: Bytesmiths <
http://www.bytesmiths.com>