You may find these two articles of interest
<
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/epson2100/2100_1.htm> <
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/epson1290/1290.htm>
There are several drawbacks with the 2100, namely –
1. You are restricted by the pigment inks to the choice of paper that you can use, in particular there is no deep glossy (aka Cibachrome photographic paper) paper available, although no doubt some will appear in due course. There are glossy papers, but they’re not that glossy really. The problem is that the pigment inks will not go through the pores of the glossy coating and tend to sit on top of the paper giving a bronzing or matting effect.
2. You cannot print monochrome images with black ink only as you can on the 1290 and must use the coloured inks, changing one of the two blacks to suit the paper surface. Quality is very good, but the prints suffer badly from metamerism, i.e. the colour changes depending on the light source – magenta cast, green cast and pure mono.
3. The 2100 drinks ink like there is no tomorrow. Although the colours are in separate cartridges running costs are high. There are third party continuous inking systems now available for the 2100 from the likes of Permajet and others.
The strength of the 2100 is in the production of archival quality pastel images, in colour, on a matt paper.The tonal range is excellent.
As a dedicated monophotographer (amateur) who exhibits all over the world my 1270 has produced many medal winning prints. No reason why the 1290 should not do the same. Above experience from a colleague with whom I collaborate closely.
Qualitywise I have printed the same monochrome image file on my 1270 at 1440 dpi, a 1290 at 2880 dpi, using black ink only and on my colleague’s 2100 at 2880 dpi using the colour inks. Apart from the metamerism on the 2100 prints you need a loupe to tell them apart!
IMO – go for the 1290S
Thanks VERY much. Excellent I will go for the 1290S.
What does the S stand for? I have 1290 printers and agree with the analysis above, but if the 1290 is available without the S, I think it’s much cheaper. Also, 1290 is European designation, so have a look at 7dayshop.com or photoglossy.com for proper Epson inks at considerable saving on UK mainland price. I once had a 2000p but it was too much trouble for the minor advantages, so I changed to three 1290s (small s). One for colour, one for sepia (small gamut) and one for black&white using carbon based inks. I think I’ll keep these until the next generation of printers offers something really extra.
John
I think s/S is just an update(marketing term) of 1290. Price is same I think…where I live 1290 is not available anymore.
P.S- I don’t know what "S" stands for 🙂 Could be special, silky, smooth, sexy…lord knows.
Oh! and the 1290S is different colour to 1290.
Maybe "S" stands for "Serial". Does the 1290S have a serial port?
In the US the 1280S is the successor to the 1280.
The S designates the printer is now silver.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:45:25 -0800, nick/
wrote:
I think s/S is just an update(marketing term) of 1290. Price is same I think…where I live 1290 is not available anymore.
P.S- I don’t know what "S" stands for 🙂 Could be special, silky, smooth, sexy…lord knows.
Just imagine shipping out a print at 9600 baud . <G>
🙂
I’ve been using a 1290 for a couple of years, and found it great on Epson’s premium Glossy paper, beating my old darkroom hands down. The only drawback is fading of prints if not under glass. In a heat wave a couple of years back, all my exposed prints faded in 2 days (maybe combination of 40 degrees and high concentrations of ozone in heatwave??), after sitting relatively unchanged for months.
I also frequently get the blocked nozzle issue = lots of wasted ink. Overall, a happy customer though.
Dean [posted from Australia]
The 2200 is supposed to solve the fading problem, isn’t it? Supposedly, the prints are archival. I’m thinking about buying a 2200. Anybody have any comments on it?
Bert
PS – I KNOW the ink is bloody expensive!
Bert,
Yup, the 2200 solves the fading problem with Ultrachrome pigment-based inks. Much more permanent than dyes. Remarkably, the color gamut is almost as good.
The Epson 2200’s prints archival qualities are limited by the paper you print on. Archival paper should give you 70 years or more of print life.
There is an issue with glossy paper, in that the ink sits up on top of the glossy coating and you can get a weird effect called "bronzing". There may be a third party paper to solve that problem, but I’m not sure. But for satin and matte papers, it does great.
— Burton —
Thanks, Burton. The thing that intrigues me about the 2200 is that it has a roll paper adapter. I’m interested in doing panoramas…stitching 3 or 4…or maybe more images together. I have a friend who is a professional photographer who does it, and he uses a 2200. Of course I like the fact that it will handle 14-inch wide paper too.
bert
EDIT: I’m going to ask him about the bronzing.
Nick,
I use my 2200 for the same things you do. The ability to replace ONE color at a time, the image quality, access to roll paper…and a wide variety of surfaces, gotta have it. Plus, Epson has a level 3 PS RIP at a nominal price. Also I have a 7600 and being able to proof an image at a small(read cheap)size first, gotta have it. By the way, I,m not connected to Epson in anyway, and I’ve in this business for several decades. Gotta have it!
Dutch Dremann
Bert,
I’m switching from Epson OEM ink to Generations ProPhoto ink over the Christmas break on my 890 ( little brother to 1280 ). I’ll let you know how it prints. I’ve been hungry for archival printing and hope I don’t give up too much color to get it. Getting a continuous ink system for Christmas to cut ink prices . Hope it all works out .<G>
🙂
Brent
Bert,
I’m interested in doing panoramas…stitching 3 or 4…or maybe more images together.
Many Epson printers can do panoramas, even those that don’t have roll paper holders. For example, my original Epson Stylus Photo printer can print panoramas using Epson’s 8.3×23.4 panorama paper fed into its regular paper holder. I move the printer close enough to the wall to let the wall support the top of the long paper. I have used several different commercial stitching programs to stitch images to make panoramas.
Of course I like the fact that it will handle 14-inch wide paper too.
Will it go that wide? I knew it could handle 13×19 sheets, but I sort of assumed that 13 inches or only slightly more than 13 inches was the limit. Is there any 14-inch wide paper available for the Epson 2200? I wouldn’t mind making some 14xwhatever panoramas.
But right now I am sort of lusting after the new Epson 4000. It could make even bigger panoramic prints than the 2200, but the 4000 is a pretty big jump up from my original Epson Stylus Photo, sizewise and budgetwise, so I may get an Epson 1280 as an easy interim step that will let me continue to use my 12.5-inch laminator. A big laminator and a big printer would wreck my budget (grin).
— Burton —
Will it go that wide? I knew it could handle 13×19 sheets, but I sort of assumed that 13 inches or only slightly more than 13 inches was the limit
Burton,
Sorry…13 inches max. Max printable area is 13×44.
I didn’t know about the pano paper for the small Epsons. Thanks. Bert
Brent,
I didn’t know you could change ink types, or even get continuous ink systems for old Epson printers. I would never invest any money in my 780, though. I’m ready to junk it.
Burton’s post did give me pause re the 2200, though. I guess these new archival inks are not quite as good color-wise, and your comments seem to confirm that. My 780…when it works, and all the jets are unplugged…actually gives pretty nice prints. I’d hate to end up with something less. I really don’t care that much about the archival issue. I just want reliability, and the ability to handle larger prints and panoramas. A little more speed would be nice, but not necessary.
Bert
Bert,
I guess these new archival inks are not quite as good color-wise…
The difference is very slight. I am not trying to talk you out of the Epson 2200. It has a lot of satisfied users. If you get a chance, look at some sample prints.
As for the "bronzing" effect, that is not unique to the Epson 2200. I experienced the same thing back in 1997 with my Epson Stylus Photo when I tried some of the Kodak glossy inkjet paper because the Epson Photo Quality Glossy paper was too lightweight for my tastes. Then Epson came out their heavier Epson Photo Paper and things worked fine. Since then Kodak has redesigned their inkjet paper at least once, although I haven’t tried any. I still have part of that original batch somewhere.
If glossy prints are your favorite, that would be an issue you would need to resolve for the Epson 2200.
I really don’t care that much about the archival issue.
The archival issue is the main reason for going with a pigment-based printer like the Epson 2200 (and the Epson 4000). I care about it myself, but the costs of the printer, the inks, and the papers are an issue with me. At present I laminate my dye-based prints to help increase their life. Eventually I will go with a pigment-based printer. Early on, I was tempted by the first Epson pigment-based printer, the Epson 2000. But it turned out to be a dog. (I did not buy one, but heard a lot of negative comments from their owners.)
— Burton —
Burton,
Thanks for your very informative post. I have tried a number of different papers with my 780, and have pretty much settled on the Epson Matte Heavyweight. I really like the colors and the detail I get with that paper. I bought a lot of Kodak paper…Soft Gloss and Heavy Weight High Gloss and have been very disappointed in the print quality. Colors are just nowhere near as vibrant. I’ve fooled with the driver settings, but have found it to be beyond my limited abilities to correct…and the Epson paper looks so good…why fight Mother Nature? 🙂
The 2200 may not be the right printer for me. I was going to buy a 1280 which is an old design…just a large-format version of what I have. But, I really find the constant head-plugging problems to be quite a nuisance, and I suspect the 1280 would be similar…it even uses the same black cartridge.
Actually my printer works okay if I use it every day or two. The problams start when it sits for a week or more, and I just don’t print that much. Maybe I should look at some Canon or HP printers.
Anybody have any suggestions for a high-quality large-format (13-inch)photo printer? Bert
