It is my understanding that the Epson 2000P IS NOT recommended by Epson or
others for black and white for starters. the color of the inks tend to
change colors under different lights reflecting ff of them from different
angles. I believe it is called menorism (sp?) or something like that.
Secondly, the prints from the Epson 2000P, as I have read and been told,
does not produce glossy prints or prints that have a photographic look and
feel to them. The color prints which is does produce are suppose to be very
nice but more suited to fine arts materials or subjects than to other
subjects where a glossy photographic feel and look is desired. Thirdly,
Epson has focused in its hype and literature on the longevity/archival
question more out of necessity than choice as a result of its 1270/premium
glossy paper farce in which they made much more limited claims only to find
that they neglected to account for air contaminants and ozone pollution
factors which caused orange fading of primarily the Premium Glossy paper
which they had claimed had a life of 10 years but for many worldwide faded
to orange with hours of printing unless immediately placed behind glass in
frames or under Mylar in albums. I world suggest that the introduction of
the 2000P with all its longevity and archival promotion was an attempt to
shift attention away from the 1270 disaster.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
Corbett
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Epson does seem to be the only manufacturer that has focussed on the
longevity/archivability question and that's what attacts me to their
products. I'm thinking of getting an Epson 2000P only because I don't have
room for anything larger.
Since I have a photo archive from 1866 onward, the longevity question is
quite important to me.
Hart Corbett
----------
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001, 1:50 PM
>
> In a message dated 01/22/2001 1:35:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << You are looking at 2 separate entities. Scan quality can benefit from
> higher res,
> and that can show via Epson printers, so yes, you can get a better
result.
> But
> Epsons have defects all their own, which I personally find fairly
> objectionable -
> the residual coarseness of the dither patter and some sharp
discontinuities
> in the
> gamut which make for some quite jarring transitions in tone, specially
WRT
> greens.
> I recently saw samples from a Canon S800 Photo inkjet in Tokyo and they
were
> very
> much more 'photographic'. It was only a quick look, but they seemed much
> more like
> good colour photographic prints than the samples from Epson 870 and 1270
> also
> displayed, let alone my own 1200. >>
>
>
> So, are the Epsons still the "best" around for the money? I don't hear
much
> talk about HP, Canon, or Lexmark being of astounding quality. Or are
Epson
> people that biased?
> Ed in Atlanta
>
>
