Epson R2400 Question: Bronzing problems on glossy papers???

Hi all,
I am considering getting the Epson R2400 to replace my 2200. I liked the 2200, but the one "knock" that I had on it was the bronzing that I saw on some of the glossy and luster papers (Epson Papers). Has this problem been eliminated or reduced in the newer R2400? I do print on Matte a lot (love Epson's Enhanced Matte) but do ocasionally like papers with a bit more sheen for some subjects.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Linda, I print mostly on Epson Premium Luster (or close analogs like Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl), as well lately as Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. My 2400 doesn't produce any signficant bronzing. I never used a 2200 so I can't make a direct comparison for you. But every review I've read indicates the 2400 is a huge improvement over the 2200 in this respect (among others)...

Epson claims the problem has been dramatically reduced. The 2200 was really not ever recommended for glossy papers although it did support them.

Linda,

I print on an Epson 4800 (uses the same inkset as the 2400) using primarily Epson Premium Glossy and Premium Luster. Occasionally, if you look hard enough, a trace of bronzing will be visible on a print. However, it is minimal and in any normal lighting usually not visible. Nothing like what could occur with the previous inksets.

I just printed a dozen prints and checked them all to see if I could find any bronzing. There was none at all. I haven't used the 2200 either, but from my experience, the printers with the K3 inksets have pretty much solved all the problems (bronzing, metamerism) that plagued the previous printers.

__________________

Jim Gunning

Thanks to all of you for your input and assurances on this printer. I like to check all of these things out before I get out the old checkbook. At the time that I purchased the 2200, it was the best out there without going to a huge pro-grade printer, but it's time to retire it now.

Linda, the output on matte papers is comparable between the two printers with the 2400 having a slight edge over the 2100/2200 when it comes to darker (or black) areas in the print. Darker colors appear a bit more solid (sorry for not finding a better description) out of the 2400. But in general the differences between the two printers on matte media are very small.

As for b/w: it is a lot easier to produce a neutral b/w print on matte paper out of the box with the 2400.

The glossy output from both printers is just not comparable! The 2400 is so much better in that regard (IMO). Gloss differential and bronzing is still visible in prints from 2400 (very little) but the new K3 inks are light years ahead of the "old" ultrachome inks, producing glossy output that has a lot "more life".

Sven

Linda, you will be very pleased with the output of the 2400 on glossy or luster papers compared to the 2200. Both bronzing and metamerism have been noticeably reduced.

However, if I may make a suggestion, you may want to consider the bigger brother, the Epson 3800. It is more expensive, of course, but it also comes with a lot more ink -- in fact, when you take into account the extra ink the 3800 comes with, it's actually less expensive than the 2400. Just something to keep in mind.

Eric

The R2400 is better when it comes to bronzing but is still not an ideal printer for coated papers. The inks may have a little less bronzing but still very much exhibit the same gloss differential issues as the 2200. If you need a printer for coated papers I would go with the R1800 instead or better yet, one of the HP archival dye-based printers.

Guy

Linda,

I would like to second the recommendation that Eric gave to consider the Epson 3800. Michael Reichmann has a review on his website where he details the economics of the ink in the initial purchase. I would also compare the ink costs between the 2400 and 3800 cartridges. The 2400 is by a fair margin the most expensive for ink costs.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... 3800.shtml

You may not wish to print above 13x19, but if you would like to, the 3800 will allow up to 17x22 inch prints. Also, it appears that Epson has also slightly further refined the color gamut over the 2400/4800 printers.

I disagree with Guys' assessment of the gloss differential on the K3 inkset. It is very much like the bronzing problem. Practically non-existent. The only time I have seen any gloss differential on K3 prints is if you have an area where there is a specular highlight (or totally blown highlights) that receives no ink coverage at all. If you look across the print in glancing light you will see the area where the glossy surface is interrupted. In normal viewing you would not see these. I just looked at the same twelve prints I referred to in my earlier post and there was zero gloss differential on any of them.

_____________

Jim Gunning

Epson's own literature states that the "Microcrystal Encapsulation" technology will reduce (not eliminate) gloss differential. It is an inherent issue of the ink drying on top of the paper, rather than soak into it (as in the case of HP's swellable papers).

If you compare a R2400 print with deep blacks and bright whites to the same print on the R1800 (or HP dye ink on swellable paper) you will definitely see a difference in evenness of the ink.

Don't get me wrong, I own an R2400 myself and love it but I primarily print on matte paper. I still prefer to outsource my glossy prints to Chromira or Lightjet.

Guy

The gloss differential problem is still there with the 2400 as it is with the 4800. If one knows what to look for it is very easy to detect. OTOH I'm with Jim: "In normal viewing you would not see these" (most of the times).

I currently own and operate an 2100, 2400, 4800 and R800. The only printer that doesn't show uneven surface reflection on glossy paper is the R800 to do its glossy optimizer.

For non-bulk printing I'd second the above recommendation for the new 3800 for three reasons: this printer is in terms of ink cost a lot more economical compared to the 2400 with its mini ink tanks. The ink lay-down technology seems to be one step ahead of the 4800 to do a modified nozzle configuration (I need to dig deeper into this) and it has both blacks on board. Downside is that the 3800 can't handle roll papers.

Sven

Thanks to all of you for your input. It seems that the R2400 is a good choice. The 3800 sounds good, but I don't do a lot of bulk printing so the smaller ink tanks on the R2400 should be just fine. I usually prefer to print on matte papers for most of my work, but like some of the glossier papers like Epsons Premium Luster or Semi-Gloss for some applications. I also print quite a bit of B&W. I am anxious now to see what the R2400 will do for some of my favorites as I was very happy with the way that my 2200 handled B&W. The one thing that I really do appreciate here at NSN is the feedback that I get on equipment questions.
Again, Thank you and have a wonderful New Year!

UPDATE
I am a happy camper! I went out this morning and bought the R2400 and have it installed and have done my first few prints. I printed 3 prints on Epson Premium Luster in 8X10 format and they are awesome. I see no significant bronzing (a problem I had on this paper with my old 2200). I purposely did a couple of prints that would really show if the printer had problems. One was one of my favorite water lily photos. Colors were rich and natural and detail was great. That one was the easy one. The second one was a portrait of my son and his girlfriend. Skin tones were good, but the thing that was more amazing was both were wearing differently textured black turtlenecks and I could see the textures in each. Finally, I printed out the snowy egret portrait that I posted yesterday in the Bird Forum here and even all of that white looks great as the printer held in all of the detail.

Thanks to all of you for your help and advice. Now I am going to go print some more.

Glad it is working great for you, Linda!