Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 14 posts | 
by Jared Martin on Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:47 pm
User avatar
Jared Martin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 277
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Hi All,
I normally get my prints done at WHCC and have been happy with them. However, I'm tired of the whole wait for the prints to come in the mail game. I've been looking at the Epson R2400 and it seems pretty impressive. The only gotcha is the relatively small ink cartridges. I've never owned a photo printer before, but I have had other ink jet type printers and have been annoyed with the cost of replacing the ink (and the heads clogging). I ran across this product though:
http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R2400

and was wondering if anyone had any opinions about it. Has anyone used non-Epson ink in their 2400 with good results? Can you buy "bulk" Epson ink?

Thanks,
Jared
Jared Martin
http://www.facebook.com/jaredmartinphotographer
 

by Jim Dolan on Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:51 pm
User avatar
Jim Dolan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Location: Florida/Colorado
Very interesting. Will watch this thread carefully. The thoughts that went through my mind are:
I would use my printer more if this thing worked, agree the cost of ink and down time is a PIA.
Once you commit, your printer will never be the same.
The print head moving back and forth may stress the hoses.
That could lead to spills and damaged property like furniture or tables.
Is the ink epson, using not epson inks may clog nozzels, not last as long etc.
What about changing out the ninth tank, matte black.
Finally, is this a Rube Goldberg.
[color=teal][b]"If you talk to animals they will talk with you and you will know each other.
If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear.
What one fears, one destroys."
Chief Dan George[/b][/color]
 

by Eric Chan on Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:27 pm
Eric Chan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1945
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Member #:01107
Jared, I know nothing about the ink system you linked to, but keep in mind that when you buy an inkjet printer, the real costs in the long term are the inks and the papers, not the printer itself. I know that might sound strange, because the printer eats a large amount out of your wallet up front, but in the long run the inks and paper will dominate the cost if you print enough.

The other issue is that you won't want to have to keep changing the inks frequently. This has to do with the small size of the cartridges. One solution is to use a printer that uses larger cartridges, for example the Epson 3800, which uses 80 mL cartridges (as opposed to the 2400's 17 mL cartridges), or the 4800, which can take either 110 mL or 220 mL cartridges.

I would generally advise against using non-Epson ink in an Epson printer, unless there's a very specific technical goal you're striving for (e.g., you only print B&W, and even then I find it doubtful you'd get a better result than using Epson's UC K3 inks).

The third issue you mention is clogs. If you're looking for a machine that cleans itself so that you don't have to run manual cleaning cycles, consider the HP or Canon printers, such as the HP B9180 or the Canon ipf5000.

Eric
Eric Chan
[url=http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/]MadManChan Photography[/url]
 

by jgunning on Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:02 am
jgunning
Forum Contributor
Posts: 311
Joined: 9 Jun 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Jared,

Epson, to the best of my knowledge does not sell bulk ink. Their marketing plan would be undermined if they did. As Eric noted, the real long term costs are in ink and paper, not printers.

I've used a set of Ink Republic dampers on an Epson 1270 for several years with good results. Previously I used converted Epson cartridges using parts from MIS Associates. In both cases I used MIS pigment ink. The converted cartridges were nothing but trouble and I strongly recommend against using them. The ink dampers from Ink Republic replaced the converted cartridges. They are similar to the design that Epson has used in the ink supply systems in some of their larger printers and work nearly perfectly. I say nearly because I've had to reprime one or two of them, (due to not frequent enough use) but they worked just fine after that. Of the continuous flow systems (CFS) on the market, I feel the design of the Ink Republic system is superior to anything else.

The CFS do work. However, sometimes they take a bit of fiddling to install and keep operating. With some mechanical savvy and a few simple tools most available systems will give good service. The hoses are not stressed since there is enough slack in them. I suspect many other parts in the printer would be worn out long before the hoses would be fatigued, or so brittle they would break and leak. I've never had a leak of any kind. The printer is not permanently altered and I could take the CFS off and install a set of cartridges in about 10 minutes. Proper installation is the key here.

The chief problem is the aftermarket inksets that you will use with the CFS. Normally, the only real advantage is the cost savings in purchasing ink. It can be dramatic, so this is certainly very attractive. The other possiblility is using types of inks not available from any printer manufacturer. The downside is: how well does the ink work? How long will it last on the paper you use? What is the gamut? Will it rub off or wash off easily? All these questions will have to be answered by you or someone else that has done proper testing. As you might imagine some of the claims made by the ink sellers are not matched in practical use. It's necessary in every case to have a good custom profile made for your printer. I tried the generic MIS profiles made for their ink and they simply were not good enough to use for critical work. A custom profile is necessary if you want results comparable to what you get from a good professional lab.

The other dilemma in deciding to use aftermarket ink is the advances that Epson has made with the K3 inkset. In one upgrade, Epson addressed nearly all the previous objections about inkjet inks. The K3 inks will last your lifetime before fading, have virtually no metamerism, bronzing, or gloss differential. (virtually because nearly all prints I've made exhibit none of these effects. In those few that do, the effect is so slight that I have to look hard to see it. Usually viewing under very unusual conditions is required to see the effect)

I bought an Epson 4800 because I wanted 17" wide prints, it can use roll paper, and has none of the problems present with the previous inks. It has produced the best prints I have ever gotten from any medium. That includes over thirty years of darkroom work using Ektacolor, Ektachrome, Cibachrome, most any B&W process including toning. It is that good! After the 4800 arrived I never made another print on the 1270. It's now the "office" printer.

The 2400 is pretty much just a smaller version using the same K3 inks. Another factor in purchasing the 4800 was the availablility of 220 ml ink cartridges. These are the largest Epson makes and using them brings the cost of the ink down dramatically compared to the small tanks in the 2400. An example: When purchased from Atlantic Exchange in Miami, a 110ml cartridge for the 4800 costs $50 ($.45 per ml). A 220ml cartridge costs 82.50 ($.37 per ml). An 80ml cartridge for a 3800 is $50 ($.62 per ml). The 13ml ones for the 2400 are $11.20 ($.86 per ml). The ink for the 2400 thus costs close to 200% or 230% more than the 4800 depending on the size of cartridge used. Each printer may not use exactly the same amount of ink making the same image, but the comparison is close enough to illustrate the differences in ink costs.

If you are considering the 2400, you may want to look hard at the 3800. The ink costs with the 3800 are less and you can print up to 17" wide. Also, the 3800 takes both the matte and photo cartridges at the same time. With the 2400 you have to swap them. The 2400 costs about $850. The 3800 is $1295. With the 3800 you get about $450 worth of ink. The printer difference in price is $450. So buying the 3800 is like buying the 2400 with extra ink and getting a larger more economical printer in the bargain.

Edit: Forgot to mention another factor in cartridge size. Using the small carts means you will have to change them more frequently. This can be a good thing if you print very few prints as you will be less likely to have ink that is too old and beginning to dry in the carts. Downside is: when you change carts on the consumer printers the printer goes through a charging cycle which uses ink from all the carts. The more frequently you change, the more ink wasted. The larger Pro printers can do this without wasting the other colors. The 4800 is able to track how much ink is used on each print as well as the paper used. If anyone is interested I can post the ink usage stats for a number of prints so you can see exactly how much is used.

Since you have not used a photo printer before, you may want to try it using a friends', or a rental lab to see if you want to make the investment and do the extra work involved. Depending on how many prints you make using a commercial lab may be more economical and less hassle. In my case, I like doing the "darkroom' part. YMMV

Jim Gunning
Orlando, FL


Last edited by jgunning on Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
 

by MartyC on Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:14 am
MartyC
Forum Contributor
Posts: 92
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Toms River N.J.
I have to agree with JGunning about third party ink, I tried it with a number of printers, the prints were good, but the problems with the CIS system were a nightmare.
Epson started using pressurized carts with the 9800 and 7800 pro series, the pressurization has lessened the chance for clogging because the heads are always wet when capped. This tecnology is also in the 3800 which I feel is a superior printer when compared to a 2400. The 3800 also uses a different algorithim in it's printing process which reduces banding issues when printing at higher speeds.
Marty Connelly
NSN 0032
 

by Jared Martin on Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:09 am
User avatar
Jared Martin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 277
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Thanks for the excellent info and feedback. I started looking at the 3800 because, while I don't currently get many prints larger than 13", I would like to start. I then backed off after calculating how much it would be to have to replace an entire set of ink (although, in reality, that most likely wouldn't happen - I'd only have to replace one or two should they run out). The sticker shock there sort of unnerved me. That's why I looked at the 2400 and an ink tank option (and I tried to convince myself "how often would I REALLY print something larger than 13"). In actuality, it would probably be hard for someone in my shoes to justify buying this expensive of a printer for my photos as photography is a part-time hobby of mine rather than a really really serious one of a career (although I'm getting more and more into it).

I don't know if I could justify a 4800 though as I imagine it's quite large (as it is, I would need a new table if I got the 2400 or 3800) and the ink could very well go bad before I'd use it up (a similar concern with the 3800).

Perhaps someone can answer me this: I had heard previously (could be untrue) that HP's cartridges did something where when you install them, it dates them and X months later, even if there is still ink in them, it tells you to replace them (this might not have been on any of their photo printers - just ink jet) So, theoretically, if you went on a "dry spell" for a while and didn't print, you may need to replace cartridges that technically shouldn't need to be. Any truth to that and would that (or similar) affect Epson printers?

Oh the questions and dilemmas! :)
Jared Martin
http://www.facebook.com/jaredmartinphotographer
 

by Jim Dolan on Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:39 am
User avatar
Jim Dolan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Location: Florida/Colorado
I went ot Epson printers (R2400) because of the print quality.

However they do clog and you do have to throw away cartridges with ink in them especially if you print infrequently like most hobbiest. Canon is no better in my opinion.

HP color printers do not do this I'm told. They somehow preserve the cartridge when not in use or you change the printhead with each new cartridge.

I've had a HP color printer for years (not photo) that is excellant on cartridges, an 800 series I believe. The ink last a long time. I've never had their photo printer.

Maybe this will stimulate more discussion on HP vs. Epson.
[color=teal][b]"If you talk to animals they will talk with you and you will know each other.
If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear.
What one fears, one destroys."
Chief Dan George[/b][/color]
 

by MartyC on Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:56 am
MartyC
Forum Contributor
Posts: 92
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Toms River N.J.
Jared:
There are a lot of stories floating around out there about ink going bad, most of them are not true. Even if the ink is beyond its expiration date, it is still usable. It is recommended that if you do not print anything for a few weeks you should turn the printer on and do a nozzle check at least once a week to keepthe heads from drying out. Since the 3800 is a pressurized system the chances that yyou will have ink issues are slim to none.
I work for an Epson Pro dealer and I have seen printers that have not worked for over a year and when fired up and a few powerful head cleanings everything functions and thats because they were preped properly before storing.
Depending on what you are printing you will go through light magenta first, light cyan second and then yellow, this could take months or weeks, it all depends on how many prints have been done.
Marty Connelly
NSN 0032
 

by Royce Howland on Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:14 pm
User avatar
Royce Howland
Forum Contributor
Posts: 11719
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Member #:00460
Jared, a few thoughts in addition to all the other good comments so far. First, if you would likely print on an infrequent enough basis that you may be concerned about ink longevity, then I'd definitely steer clear of any after-market CFS ink system. Whatever questions you may have about manufacturers' ink in sealed cartridges designed explicitly for the printer, surely could be no better with third-party ink systems. Whether the ink actually "goes bad" or not is less important than issues of clogging, drying out, repriming lines, etc.

Second, if you likely would print only "smaller" images (i.e. up to 13" media, mostly or entirely cut sheet) during somewhat infrequent print runs, how much ink are you really going to use? CFS gear and printers with larger cartridges only kick in their economic benefit if you are actually using up the ink. If (for example) 2 or 3 small cartridges per color would last you in an R2400 for a year, you are not going to save any signficant money by going to any other printer or ink delivery setup. Ink economics is a volume equation, if you're not printing the volume it doesn't really matter.

Third, an R2400 plus a third-party CFS product will cost pretty much the same as an R3800. And the economics are similar thereafter for ink costs, especially if you are printing low volume as noted above. If you're financially prepared to look at the Ink Republic system or anything like it, why not just go with an R3800 and skip all the hassle, while getting the guarantee of outstanding ink quality, media compatibility and ICC profile availability with the Epson K3 inkset? Plus the R3800 is just a better printer than the R2400, by all reports.

R3800 = ~$1300 from B&H. R2400 + Ink Republic system + 3rd party paper profiles = ~$1200. If sticker shock holds you back from considering the R3800, well, the R2400 option is hardly any better but does have some significant potential downsides. There really is no free lunch here. :)
Royce Howland
 

by Jared Martin on Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:58 pm
User avatar
Jared Martin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 277
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Marty,
Good point about the pressurized system. Since it's been a while (several years), I should have known that technology would have alleviated/solved some of the more common problems with ink jets.

Royce,
Excellent argument - I guess I was needing someone to set me straight with the thinking on that :)
Jared Martin
http://www.facebook.com/jaredmartinphotographer
 

by Jim Dolan on Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:25 pm
User avatar
Jim Dolan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Location: Florida/Colorado
Well I've been busy, after reading this thread and a few reviews I bought the 3800. I like the idea of larger ink tanks and pressure operation. I would like to do more large prints. I learned that the large tank advantage includes less ink charging and the waste that goes with smaller capacity tanks being changed more frequently over time. Also, the cost per ml is $.688 in the 3800 vs. $1.154 for the 2400 based on the retail/street price for both.

The fact that it does not support roll paper is of no consequence to me since I never took the roll adapter out of the box on the 2400.

Nine installed tanks if another plus, but what if I don't use the matte black at all? I understand that the printer will switch automatically with the matte paper selection. There will be some loss of ink there but not as much as the 2400 swapping of tanks.

The printer comes Tuesday and the 2400 is for sale.

Thanks for the discussion.
[color=teal][b]"If you talk to animals they will talk with you and you will know each other.
If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear.
What one fears, one destroys."
Chief Dan George[/b][/color]
 

by Bill Chambers on Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:47 pm
User avatar
Bill Chambers
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4015
Joined: 8 Feb 2006
Location: Milton, Florida
One other consideration if you use 3rd party inks they will void the warranty, so I would advise using genuine Epson inks at least until after the warranty preiod expires.
Please visit my web site, simply nature - Photographic Art by Bill Chambers
Bill Chambers
Milton, Florida
 

by Jim Dolan on Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:54 pm
User avatar
Jim Dolan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Location: Florida/Colorado
I used after market inks in a Canon and can testify that is a bad idea. Stick with the manufacturer. The ink is more than color for them, drying, lubrication, mixing, cleaning ......... shall I go on. My time is more valuable to me than the cost of the ink.
[color=teal][b]"If you talk to animals they will talk with you and you will know each other.
If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear.
What one fears, one destroys."
Chief Dan George[/b][/color]
 

by nash30 on Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:05 am
nash30
Forum Contributor
Posts: 19
Joined: 13 Oct 2011
Jim Dolan wrote:I used after market inks in a Canon and can testify that is a bad idea. Stick with the manufacturer. The ink is more than color for them, drying, lubrication, mixing, cleaning ......... shall I go on. My time is more valuable to me than the cost of the ink.
people should be aware of this.. aftermarket inks are advisable and helpful if only you would use them to print documents that do not need to be printed out well but if you would use this one for printing photos then you are actually wasting a lot of money instead of saving out.. i have just recently proven that to myself.. at least i have not wasted a lot of money on those so called cheaper than OEM inks..
someday you will find me,caught beneath the landslide......
[url=http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/][size=50]http://www.inkjetsuperstore.com/[/size][/url]
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
14 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group