Evaluation:  
Conclusion: An Ink Guzzler
Review: Besides being an ink guzzler, I find this printer to be quite picky and finicky. It's not the easiest machine to figure out. I think it's an engineering nightmare. Still can't match color quality of an HP.I'll stick with my Hewlett-Packards.
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Very good but with problems
Review: My initial experience was good, but after a year and a half here is the sum of the current state of affairs. I truly like the color quality with excellent black and white. Just so you know, I am a big Epson fan. I will not mention the design irritations as, the gymnastics required when handling large or heaver paper, or that blue/green print areas often require a separate layer mask to enhance color saturation, or that some saturated reds found in nature are unprintable (out of gamut). After a year and have of service:
* Some panels will not close and must be taped
* Will occasionally start printing about 2 stops darker than normal
* When changing from Photo to Matt black system will indicate that the cartridge is empty when it is not
* Occasionally will not recognize / feed paper
* Printer profiles are a bit confusing to setup and configure.
As I mentioned, I am an Epson fan, but for $700 I expected fewer problems and better ease of use. I will probably try a different printer the next time. Regards
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Simply Amazing, Bordering on Stunning
Review: I purchased this printer as a second printer to use for dedicated photo usage.
My first printer is a nice color laser printer which is very good for its niche and very nice workhorse, but my experience as a photographer prior to the digital age has always left me disappointed with its use as a photo machine. I purchased the Epson R2400 specifically for photographic production. I was looking for print size (the R2400 prints up to 13" wide by 44" long), pigment inks for archival longetivity, and deep, accurate reproduction of both color and B&W photography.
Ok, so far, so good. The printer arrived and was installed and running the same day. (I had pre-ordered a USB 2.0 cable to go with it, and it arrived the day before the printer.) The printer installed exactly as the rapid install guide illustrated. It installed quickly and easily, very smoothly and with no hiccups. I literally spent more time running the cable (The printer is located about 7 feet from the computer and I had to go behind some furniture up against a wall.) than I did installing the actual printer. In fact, I think I took more time taking SHIPPING TAPE off the printer than I did installing it!
The prints were an initial (slight) disappointment. However, this was due more to my impatience than any fault with the printer. My disappointment was because it came out of the printer looking very much like ink-jet prints I have seen before on glossy paper. The ink comes out dry enough to immediately touch without getting ink on your fingers or messing up the photo, but it IS susceptible to fingerprints getting on the image.
However, apparently the pigments on these prints "harden" over the subsequent few hours because the next day I was pleasantly surprised to find nice, smooth, shiny images that were very difficult to tell from actual photographic process prints. The main difference I find between photographic prints and the Epson's is that photographic glossy prints are a little more shiny. However, I think that this is actually a benefit. You get the sharpness of a glossy image, but with a little less glare than a traditional photo-process glossy.
Furthermore, looking at the Epson's prints under a 10X jeweler's loupe, I didn't see the "pixellation" I had come to expect from digital prints. In fact, it looks identical to the "grain" of photographic process prints.
Prior to running any of the ICC codes that were available as a free download from the Epson site, photos came out of the printer with very good color. Specifically, in an 8X10 print, a very colorful patterned tie I was wearing in a family photo (taken outdoors with the Panasonic DMC-FZ30 at 8 MP, standard outdoor color profile) compared very well (although not perfectly) with the actual tie itself. (The photo was taken and the judging was done, both in full sunlight.) I can't wait to have the time to start using the ICC profiles to see if and how much the color improves over this great start!
Ink usage may be an issue. I was talked out of the Epson 3800 by the salesman on the phone (Not to mention my wife had a price issue!) The salesmen mentioned that the ink cartridges are so large and the ink is only recommended for 6 months after you pop it into the printer. This means that unless you push a LOT of prints through, with the 3800 you will wind up throwing away a significant portion of the cheaper pigment inks.(although they do share the same Ultrachrome K3 pigment inks) This means that if you waste the 3800's larger volume, it can still be cheaper to run the R2400's smaller and (by volume) more expensive ink cartridges.
Personally on the first day, I ran through most of a pack of 100 glossy 4X6's and several of the sample pages that were packaged with the printer. (It ships with several examples of both glossy and matte 8.5 X 11" photo paper pages--Nice touch, Epson!) After this, the ink was listed as visibly diminished by the printer's pop-up window that appears at every print. This window helps you constantly monitor ink usage to help you avoid running out of ink halfway through a large print. In fact, one cartridge shows only 75% full now. My main worry with this printer now is that perhaps the 3800's larger ink cartridges would have been justified. Only time will tell.
One huge disadvantage with this R2400, supposedly the highest end home-user version of Epon's Ultrachrome K3 pigment process, is that you have to manually swap the Matte Black with the Photo Black (for glossy work) every time you want to go from glossy to matte or back again. Not such a big deal until you realize that every switch wastes ink. A call to tech support gave an estimate of 5% of total cartridge volume waste with every swap. (Ouch! Epson--PLEASE fix that!!!) It is this "feature" which dropped the R2400 down to 4 stars. The print quality is 5 star IMO, all the way. Incidentally, the 3800 installs both photo and matte ink simultaneously and swaps heads automatically, without ink wastage.
Time will tell, but I suspect that in the end, cartridge swapping ink wastage and ink cartridge size will give the edge to the 3800, at least with my volume usage. Your mileage may vary.
In conclusion, I wouldn't recommend this or ANY ink jet for a main, workhorse printer. That's what laser printers are for. However, if you can dedicate a second printer for photo purposes, I highly recommend this printer for most home users. The print quality is simply amazing, bordering on stunning.
(Note: I apologize for the length, but with a purchase item this complex and this expensive, I felt it would be worth it, even necessary. I tried to comprise the entire review of information I would want to know prior to such a purchase.)
Evaluation:
Conclusion: No problems here!
Review: I love this printer. I was somewhat nervous buying it, because while I had read some excellent reviews, some really hated this printer.
I did not purchase this from Amazon, but I did purchase it new etc, so I can speak to my recent purchase of this printer.
I'm a newb when it comes to DSLR and Quality printing, compared to some. However, I'm tech savy, and am a fast learner. I do not do any type of custom color profiles or advanced settings with this printer. I have not gotten to that level of understanding of how to use those advanced features. I did however get this unpacked, driver installed, inks in, and printing beautiful pictures within about 20 mins, the same amount of time it took me to set up my regular old Canon AIO printer.
Just using the basic settings, it prints great pics. I have tweaked a little and tried unchecking "speed up print time" (or something like that, can't remember the exact phrase in the advanced menu), and bumped up the quality a notch higher then it will allow in the basic settings, but it's hard to tell the difference. At least for me.
I recommend using Epson papers etc, I've heard others say stick with Epson, and have not had problems yet. I've printed strictly from the back part of the printer, I think it's called the feed slot or something, haven't tried out the roll feeder/printer thing, or loaded stuff to print from the front. Again, just no need to yet, not at that level yet.
I've used Epson Photo Paper Luster, and Epson Enchanced Archival Matte, and the Enchanced Matte I've used was 13x19. Picture blew me away. Looked twice as good as the image I saw on the screen. I soon realized, although I thought my LCD looked good (24 inch Acer) it was not calibrated, and the photo proved it. It was much richer, and more detailed then the screen image. Again, my LCD looks fine, but pictures will only look as good as the monitor they are viewed on. When I printed, it blew me away.
Ink gets used up reasonably fast, I've printed probably 2-3 13x9's and 20-25 11.5x8's, and ink's are a little more than half gone (some are only at half, but the light C/M seem to go fastest.
I'm very pleased, and plan on enjoying this machine for a long time!
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Too bad it stopped working after 3 months
Review: I have an $830 paperweight.
I have just spent 8 hours trying to get this thing to clear a head, and the reviews on the net say it's not going to happen.
Good luck!
|
