Now that I have jumped into digital I am printer shopping. Two questions. Is the Epson 2000 really worth the additional $300. over the 1280? Why doesn't Epson just make their archival inks available for the 1280?
#1. "Different ink technologies..." | In response to Reply # 0RRowlett Charter MemberMon 18-Mar-02 08:07 PM
The 2000P using inorganic pigments that are about as lightfast as it gets. (They might chemically degrade to some extent, but will be generally photo-stable.) The 1280 and its ilk use dye-based pigments, which are, like all organic dyes, subject to photo-bleaching over time. Different print-head technologies are required to deliver the two different kinds of inks. The two technolgies also may require different paper for maximal image quality.
The tradeoffs are:
1. Dye-based inks have a larger color gamut
2. Pigment based inks suffer from metamerism (slightly different colors when viewed from different angles)
3. Dye-based inks will fade faster
4. Pigment-based inks are essntially lightfast
5. Dye-based ink and printers are cheaper right now
It's not an easy call...both printers make excellent prints.
#2. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 0danyroth Registered since 25th Mar 2002Mon 25-Mar-02 10:15 PM
I agree with the above answer.
The 2000p has the long life.
The 1280(1290 in Europe) has the larger color space.
Prints from the 1280 are more vivid than the 2000p, and their expected life is not bad either.
It's your call what is more important for you
I decided to go with the 1280, which I do not regret!
#3. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 2Tue 26-Mar-02 12:41 AM
Thank you both for your responses. I went with the 1280, and it is amazing. I locked myself away for a couple of days w/The Photo Shop Bible and Photo Shop for Dummies, to gain some working understanding of the program. The prints I have made are beyond my expectations. My poor F-5 is suffering some lack of use due to all this, but the entire digital process and resulting prints are fascinating.
#4. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 2BJNicholls Charter MemberTue 26-Mar-02 12:45 AM
Prints fromt the 1280 can last a predicted 20 years or so - provided you display them under glass or store the prints away from air circulation in plastic sleeves. See Epson's statements on print longevity.
The 2000P's pigment inks are predicted to last about 100 years and they seems to be much more resistant to atmospheric exposure.
If print longevity is your thing (it would be if I were selling my prints), I'd go the 2000P. The 1280 has better color, but only modestly better. The 1280 is a much faster printer, however.
Epson has announced the next generation of 7 color pigment ink printers in Japan. They are faster than the 2000P and should be priced more like the 1280. Problem is, the home market generally gets the new printers a year before they go to the rest of the world.
#5. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 4N80 Charter MemberTue 26-Mar-02 01:18 AM
Just for a frame of reference concerning longevity, I looked at a print of my wife that was made 14 years ago by a professional in a studio and it is fading badly. It is an 8x10 under glass, never been in sunlight. I agree with BJ, if I planned on selling prints as fine art, longevity is of the utmost importance, but if you can get 20 years from a standard ink jet you'd be doing better than the print of my wife.
My Nikonians Gallery is here:
#6. "Good point..." | In response to Reply # 5RRowlett Charter MemberWed 27-Mar-02 12:36 AM
I just replaced with inkjet prints a half-dozen traditional photos of the Adirondacks in my house which had badly faded over about a 15 year period. Traditional color photo chemistry is not "archival" either, and is based on chemical dyes, not pigments.
#7. "RE: Good point..." | In response to Reply # 6Wed 27-Mar-02 12:50 AM
My thoughts exactly, and the main reason I opted for the 1280. I have sold prints in the past. I do not believe liability for fading after 10 years or more lies with the photographer unless some exceptional archival claim was made at the time of sale. So I determined it was not an issue. Any prints that leave here from the 1280 will be accompanied by instructions, verbal or otherwise, for display techniques that maximize their longevity. Thanks again for the excellent input.
#8. "RE: Good point..." | In response to Reply # 7N80 Charter MemberWed 27-Mar-02 11:54 AM
Yes, I agree with that. I don't think it is wrong to sell prints that are not good for many decades as long as the claim isn't made. And I don't think anyone mislead me with the print I have of my wife. However, when it comes to the image as art, I would like for my work to be as enduring as possible. Even if I were just making prints for myself I'd like to think my grandkids could view my work in all of its glory. Having said all this, I would probably be satisfied with the 1280, but will always be on the lookout for archival quality especially as it becomes more affordable and practical.
My Nikonians Gallery is here:
#9. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 0
Epson does not make archival inks for the 1280, but third party vendors do. MIS associates (http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcnew.html) makes 100% pigment based archival inks for the 1280, which include the Espon chip on the cartridge. Combine these inks with high quality archival papers (also available on their web site), and you get prints rated at something like 49 years. This gets you the archival qualities of the 2000P, but at about half the cost.....
#10. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 9BJNicholls Charter MemberFri 29-Mar-02 03:17 AM
But don't underestimate the work/waste you'll put in getting aftermarket pigment inks color compensated for use with various papers. You can buy professionally made profiles for $50 each, you can spend $5000 on a densitometer calibration system and do your own accurate profiling, you can gamble with the mediocre results that software based profiling produces, or you can play with trial and error driver settings and hope you can get something decent.
It can certainly be worth the effort and cost to do third-party pigment inks for folks who are doing a lot of printing, but it's not for everyone.
#11. "RE: Epson 1280 VS 2000P" | In response to Reply # 0
I do not own and have never seen any prints from the 2000P. However, I do own both the 1280 and the 2200 and to me the 1280 is a better printer mainly because the 2200 suffers from color shifts under different lighting. When I print my photos on the 2200 and view them out in the open, they have a significant green cast on them that is HORRIBLE AND EXTREMELY ANOYING. I honestly could care less how long my prints are going to last if I can't enjoy them or worst sell them NOW because of the green cast on them.
My choice is the 1280! Great Printer with excellent resolution (virtually indistinguishable from the 2200) but NO green cast regardless where you view the photos!
Hope this helps