I have the Epson 1200, which was the first of the 12 series printers. The most current, the 1280, is similar, although it uses a different type ink. My printer has been very durable, having cranked out perhaps a thousand large, hi-res prints and thousands of homework papers for my kids. If I were to replace it today, I would go with the Epson 1280. The 2000P offers slightly more archival capability, but it's inks aren't as brilliant as the 1280's, and to my eye, the prints are not as attractive. One pro who I questioned uses a 1280 for color printing, and a 2000P, with special inks and software, for BW printing. Paul
"Jody L. Reese" wrote: > Hi Paul, > I have been following your thread and was wondering which Epson printer your > using? I have been thinking about the Epson Stylus Photo 2000P, but at its > price tag I am a little hesitant. I have heard of too many people who have > had their Epson printhead go down and then sending the unit in for repair > about 12 to 20 months after purchase. What has your experiences been with > your printer? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:42 PM > Subject: Re: Digital Printing: Bigger is Better > > > Hi Rob, > > I wouldn't be surprised if the optimum source file for a 1440 dpi print on > my > > Epson proved to be somewhere in between the 743 ppi file that I printed > tonight > > and the 440 ppi file that I printed last week. From earlier experiments it > seemed > > that optimum was in the high five hundred range, but it's difficult to say > for > > sure without getting into microscopic examination of a number of prints. > But as > > other posters have noted, it seems that it's well above the 350 ppi that > is > > usually considered "adequate" for high end digital printing. > > Paul > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > > On 2 Jan 2002 at 21:27, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > > > > So I figured I'd go all the way, > > > > and I scanned a nice, sharp 6x7 transparency at 4000 ppi. This yielded > a > > > > 255 megabyte file, which translates to an 11.1 x 14.4 picture at 743 > > > > ppi. I then printed that file at 1440 dpi on my Epson 1200 (Just as I > > > > did for the other files.). It is noticeably better than the 440 ppi 11 > x > > > > 14 print. Extremely sharp and photographic. Of course the 255 meg file > > > > is a bear to work with, but it may well be worth the effort. > > > > > > This is interesting Paul, obviously the printer driver interprets the > source > > > file, the extra source data isn't squeezed into smaller dots, so I > surmise that > > > there must be a point of nil return and an optimum source file size for > the > > > given driver. I wonder where the difference originates from because I > can't > > > reconcile that it is simply due to the bigger file size above a certain > point? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > > - > > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
