Re: Epson Stylus Photo R2400
Re: Epson Stylus Photo R2400
- Subject: Re: Epson Stylus Photo R2400
- From: "Steve Lawrence" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:14:40 +0100
- Thread-topic: Epson Stylus Photo R2400
CD wrote:
> > Of course the permanence attributes you require will depend on the
> application, but I assume you mean fine art archival prints.
> >
> Or family photos, or most anything you won't toss in the trash when
you are
> done with it. Its not quite an effite as "fine art archival prints".
Apologies, I could have made myself clearer - the result of a desire to
write a short reply.
I simply meant that the permanence attributes you require (display,
humidity, archival storage, abrasion etc.) changes with the application.
An image produced for a museum or a fine art archival print has
completely different requirement attributes to one produced for a window
display, light box, amateur photo or outdoor display. The museum print
might be required to have a display life for more than 100 years (though
it will be rotated between display and storage), in an environment of
low lux and controlled humidity and temperature. However the window
display will probably be required to survive for only 6 to 12 months
(before it's replaced with updated advertising), but at 10,000-50,000
lux and in an extreme range in temperature and humidity. The abrasion
characteristic of the museum piece will be relevant, but that would be
addressed in the window display print through lamination, which of
course will have an impact on the other attributes.
So when talking about permanence, it's important to understand the
application/environment to understand the requirements. I referred to
fine art archival prints as Dana seemed to be saying he wanted length of
display/archival storage permanence above all else and museum/fine art
archival has the closest fit. Coming back to your reply the expectation
will be that the outdoor, window and light box display will have gone in
the trash long before the amateur photo or fine art print.
> Actually, Epson's numbers for costs using the small cart
> printers like these,
> versus the wide format versions, is not as different as one
> might expect, the
> savings on ink tend to be in the 20 to 30 percent range for
> using the larger
> carts; I would have guessed more.
I would have thought a 30% saving in ink cost would be significant for
anyone producing any number of prints. There is the media cost as well
of course.
> Certainly I personally think the Canon ratings would
> > be plenty for consumer applications.
> >
> What, praytell, is a consumer application?
Well admittedly it's a broad definition, for a disparate group, but
broadly speaking the general public taking snaps as they always have, as
opposed to serious amateurs or professionals.
> Snapshots from Christmas?
Sure and everything else that gets photographed.
> I still have the black and whites from my childhood Christmases and
> would hope that current digital prints will be around as long...
Well if we assume the WR ratings prove to be approximately true, then
you would still have them if you had printed them with the Canon. They
are rated at 100 years for archival storage. Which really was the point
I was making with that specific comment. The general public have not
been choosing who develops their film based on whether Fuji beat Kodak
on longevity. They know that they will last several generations in an
album or box and are happy with that.
All three of the top IJ vendors can deliver on that. All three can also
deliver what I consider to be acceptable life on display, behind glass.
Would they perform equally well? No, but does that matter to me decades
from now? No, I would have reprinted those seven or so special pictures
from my digital originals long before then, on my new
HP/Epson/Canon/whoever contone printer or perhaps displayed them on an
electronic photo frame not yet conceived. So for me, display permanence
although important, becomes less important beyond a number of decades
and other printer attributes come more to the fore. That might not be
true for you and if so fine. I'll be happy you made the right choice for
you.
> print a map from MapQuest, I do it on copy paper, be it with a color
laser, or
> the inkjet I happen to be printing on at the moment. No ink savings,
but paper
> costs are lower, and the maps aren't on unnecessarily heavy stock to
carry around.
> On the other hand, an Epson UltraChrome map, or flight reservation,
etc...
> printed with pigment inks would be far more likely to be legible after
a
> some moisture exposure than a dye version, so even in that usage there
are advantages.
Sure, but (generalising) if you know that a pigment has better water
fastness than dye, you also know it has good light stability, with less
diffusion. But it's also appears more grainy on film media, has less
colour brilliance, has higher cost and is more prone to abrasion. So
don't rub that map too much as you run about in the shower :) Of course
the dye has high colour brilliance, penetrates into the paper, is
transparent and has good dry abrasion. Then again, it has lower
permanence, is often not as diffusion fast and is prone to gas fade on
porous papers.
As you might expect you can blur the lines between the two. HP are
obviously doing that with regards permanence with their new dyes, with
WR reporting higher permanence on display with the HP Photosmart 8750
than the Epson Stylus Pro 9800 (based on the preliminary results for the
latter) under glass, a little less under UV filtered glass. That said,
the 9800 bests the HP on B&W. It will be interesting to see the final
results. Another example of blurring the line is pigment size. A
pigment, that might be greater than 1000nm in size, has greater
permanence than a milled pigment, that might be less than 100nm in size,
which has less permanence, but greater brilliance. However, if in an
effort to obtain the brilliance of a dye based ink, you mill the pigment
down too small, say less than 50nm in size, you can actually have less
permanence than a good dye!
Of course, the humorous thing is that this thread has concentrated on
just two aspects of the printer, namely ink on media. It's not touched
on all the other attributes of the software and hardware that gets the
document onto the page. With the assumption that the OEMs can deliver on
the users permanence requirements (at over a hundred years they
certainly do mine) then they are free to buy the printer that best
satisfies the mix of other attributes they require! Be it Epson, Canon,
HP, or who ever else.
> The latest Epson's are playing catchup in their weak areas as well:
speed and
> quietness. But by having such distinct advantages, they have not had
to
> compete on pricepoint.
To put the record on one last time. I'm not advocating people ignore
Epson. They make good printers. I own and like one of their photo
printers! I also own a Canon and HP. I'm simply advocating that all
three are producing good printers and that people look at all printers
from all three to see which fits them best.
Now must go, dinner calls and I'm real hungry.
Regards
Steve
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden