Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Ken Bennett on November 20, 2016, 10:12:48 am
-
Hi, all,
My elderly Epson 3800 gave me the "please to call for service" error and won't do anything now, so I guess after almost eight years it's time to look for a replacement. I don't think it's worth getting a unit this old serviced, though I'm willing to hear opposing views on that. :)
So, the P800 looks like the easy choice. Basically the same from my point of view - same size, will fit in the same place in my office, won't be too much of a change. $300 rebate through the end of the month.
Then I think, well, maybe I should look at this as an opportunity to get a larger 24-inch printer. I do on occasion want larger prints, though this would be several times a year, not every week. The P7000 on rebate is $2600, the P6000 is $2150, versus $900 for the P800. The initial cost is not something I am worried about.
Issues that come to mind: I like to print small cut sheets and cards, and I'm not sure the 24-inch printers can do that at all. I can go long periods of time without printing (a couple of months) -- the 3800 was fine with this -- any comments on the three new printers in this regard? Will I need to worry about the much larger tanks if I am not using them quickly? Clogs?
One of my colleagues runs two printers, a smaller Epson for small prints and cards, and a 24-inch Canon for roll paper. That's possibly an option in the long run, I suppose.
Anyone else face the same decision, and want to share how it turned out?
Thanks!
-
"please to call for service"
I got this error recently on my 3800 after replacing an ink cartridge. I put back in the almost empty cartridge and the error went away. I put back the new cartridge and have had no problems since.
So ...I would remove and re-insert any recent cartridges. Nothing to lose.
-
most of the roll printers have a 8x10 (or 8.5x11) minimum size so they're really not optimized for those small prints or cards unless you use some form of layout (Qimage or others) program that permits N-up or nesting.
-
"please to call for service"
I got this error recently on my 3800 after replacing an ink cartridge. I put back in the almost empty cartridge and the error went away. I put back the new cartridge and have had no problems since.
So ...I would remove and re-insert any recent cartridges. Nothing to lose.
Well, what do you know. Removing and replacing the last couple of ink carts let me run a test print and a cleaning cycle, which I could not do before. The test print shows a lot of clogs - we'll see if I can clear them.
I would not have thought to try this as it's been at least a month since I replaced an ink cart. Thanks!
-
Delighted you made progress. A pure fluke this incident happened to me and then a fluke I spotted your post.
Hope it works out.
Check out this thread...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114591.0
if you want to try and save some ink clearing a clog. This also worked for me. (ie printing a page with a series of small squares coloured specifically to target the colour of the clogged ink colour). I use small rectangles with white space between each square (horizontally and vertically) to get a pulsing effect. It may not be scientifically correct in terms of exact colour match, but I feel better trying this than a serious of ink cleaning cycles.
-
My 7 year old 3800 was running fine, but I decided to donate it to a local school and replace it with a P800. Purchase came with two rebates; you might check the Epson rebate site to see if the second $50 one (for owning a prior Epson like the 3800) still exists.
The P800 is a quieter machine with better feed mechanisms and better inks, including deeper blacks. I considered a larger machine, but now glad I got the P800. It comes with an optional roll feed mechanism for occasionally longer (but obviously not wider) prints.
The best decision I made besides this was to purchase ImagePrint 10. Terrific software, resulting in even better and more predictable results, which results in ink and paper savings.
Jeff
-
I did have room for a free standing printer, but I am also not printing wider than 17in more than a few times a year, so the ease of a local shop who has a monster printer and expert staff takes care of any really big prints. 8)
-
Epson is going to have 3 rebates on the P800 from 11/24 through 11/28 - the $300.00 mail in rebate, the $50.00 trade-up rebate (3800's are good for that) and a Black Friday $50.00 rebate - for a total of $400.00 off the generally advertised $1195.00 price. Considering that you get almost $400.00 of ink with the printer (some of which is used to do the initial fill), it's a good time to get one.
Tony
-
Epson is going to have 3 rebates on the P800 from 11/24 through 11/28 - the $300.00 mail in rebate, the $50.00 trade-up rebate (3800's are good for that) and a Black Friday $50.00 rebate - for a total of $400.00 off the generally advertised $1195.00 price. Considering that you get almost $400.00 of ink with the printer (some of which is used to do the initial fill), it's a good time to get one.
Tony
I got my P800 in August when there were two of the three rebates, the $300 and the first $50 (but no Black Friday, of course.) The initial fill doesn't use an enormous amount of the available ink, and only now (after quite a number of prints, letter size and 13x19") have a couple of the cartridges gotten slightly below the half-full level, and I have just ordered spares so I will have them before any of them run out.
So far my P800 is everything my 3800 was and better.
-
Epson is going to have 3 rebates on the P800 from 11/24 through 11/28 - the $300.00 mail in rebate, the $50.00 trade-up rebate (3800's are good for that) and a Black Friday $50.00 rebate - for a total of $400.00 off the generally advertised $1195.00 price. Considering that you get almost $400.00 of ink with the printer (some of which is used to do the initial fill), it's a good time to get one.
Thanks, Tony.
I did get the 3800 working again, and managed to print all my holiday cards (thanks again to stingray), but the unit was purchased in October 2007, making it nine+ years old at this point. I'm thinking I may take Epson up on their kind offer for the P800.
-
Sounds like the Epson P800 is a good-to-go machine. Having seen some argue for the local purchase - for "repair", I'm curious how folks have secured their printers. My 1st printer... came from B&H and while they're generally easy to deal with and save getting in the car, there's no way I'd be shipping it back for repair or service. I'm not sure that's a deal breaker, but curious whether folks have put even a slight amount of emphasis on the "whatcha gonna do when it's not working" issues.
BTW, glad to read someone happy with the Epson P800 and ImagePrint together as that's an appealing combo here as well. As that famous photographer Admiral Farragut said, "Damn the cost, full GAS ahead!"
-
Sounds like the Epson P800 is a good-to-go machine. Having seen some argue for the local purchase - for "repair", I'm curious how folks have secured their printers. My 1st printer... came from B&H and while they're generally easy to deal with and save getting in the car, there's no way I'd be shipping it back for repair or service. I'm not sure that's a deal breaker, but curious whether folks have put even a slight amount of emphasis on the "whatcha gonna do when it's not working" issues.
BTW, glad to read someone happy with the Epson P800 and ImagePrint together as that's an appealing combo here as well. As that famous photographer Admiral Farragut said, "Damn the cost, full GAS ahead!"
As long as my Epson printers are small enough for me to carry to my car, if needed I can drive to a repair place that gives good service at reasonable prices. I used thm for my 2200 and considered them again for my 3800, but the rebates on the P800 were too good to resist.
Anyone want to take away my 9-year-old 3800, near Boston?
-
Sounds like the Epson P800 is a good-to-go machine. Having seen some argue for the local purchase - for "repair", I'm curious how folks have secured their printers. My 1st printer... came from B&H and while they're generally easy to deal with and save getting in the car, there's no way I'd be shipping it back for repair or service. I'm not sure that's a deal breaker, but curious whether folks have put even a slight amount of emphasis on the "whatcha gonna do when it's not working" issues.
BTW, glad to read someone happy with the Epson P800 and ImagePrint together as that's an appealing combo here as well. As that famous photographer Admiral Farragut said, "Damn the cost, full GAS ahead!"
It may be too late for you but "Always keep the packing and box"
My 800 needed replaced. It took all of 10 minutes to put the tape on the proper parts put the packing
around it and tape the top. If you have already chucked the box find another and use bubble wrap.
Those postal stores will wrap and ship but way too expensive and not necessary.
-
Anyone want to take away my 9-year-old 3800, near Boston?
Call a local school/college that has a photo program and have them pick it up. That's what I did with my 7 year old 3800 when I bought the P800. They were thrilled since they use Epsons, and I got the tax deduction (still running machine with 75% full inks.)
Jeff
-
For my part, want to thank the folks here for encouraging some of us (me) on the fence about stepping up from a beginner print machine to the Epson P800.
I'd also report that though I've looked long and hard at other options - including the piezo and custom ink crowd's stuff, I'm convinced there's quite a range of work for me to do at my own level before I'm ready to tackle all the more engaged printing required to throw my hat in with the custom ink crowd. I get it, and I admire the output; but I also admire more the input. And for now, focusing my attention on the input by simplifying the process somewhat with standard software, hardware and throughput seems to be the right balance. Maybe that will change down the road, but maybe by then... who knows. And yes, I've looked at QuadtoneRIP and yes, it's not intuitive... and like most Linux-type packages (it's GIMP based if I recall), you can do amazing things if you put the time into it. Down the road... I'm not ruling it out. For now, Imageprint may be the more likely path... which while expensive, actually in its profiling wraps a slew of services into the software and saves me the cost of some expensive hardware to do the same thing? Sounds like it... and I'm impressed with the support, what I've seen in the videos, etc. Anyway... it seems a path to being efficient with time - the ultimate scarce commodity.
So thanks to all who post here on Luminous Landscape! and especially those who've included their website gallery links... you've got some amazing work. THanks for sharing.
-
For my part, want to thank the folks here for encouraging some of us (me) on the fence about stepping up from a beginner print machine to the Epson P800.
I'd also report that though I've looked long and hard at other options - including the piezo and custom ink crowd's stuff, I'm convinced there's quite a range of work for me to do at my own level before I'm ready to tackle all the more engaged printing required to throw my hat in with the custom ink crowd. I get it, and I admire the output; but I also admire more the input. And for now, focusing my attention on the input by simplifying the process somewhat with standard software, hardware and throughput seems to be the right balance. Maybe that will change down the road, but maybe by then... who knows. And yes, I've looked at QuadtoneRIP and yes, it's not intuitive... and like most Linux-type packages (it's GIMP based if I recall), you can do amazing things if you put the time into it. Down the road... I'm not ruling it out. For now, Imageprint may be the more likely path... which while expensive, actually in its profiling wraps a slew of services into the software and saves me the cost of some expensive hardware to do the same thing? Sounds like it... and I'm impressed with the support, what I've seen in the videos, etc. Anyway... it seems a path to being efficient with time - the ultimate scarce commodity.
So thanks to all who post here on Luminous Landscape! and especially those who've included their website gallery links... you've got some amazing work. THanks for sharing.
P800 and ImagePrint 10. Perfect.
IP not only saves the purchase of expensive profiling gear or custom profiles, but it makes printing much simpler, efficient and less error-prone. You get to avoid the all-too-common issues that occur in the Apple-Adobe-Epson chain with the introduction of new iterations, e.g., color management issues, etc. And you don't have to worry about missing a crucial printer setting. ColorByte figured it all out. And you're always in soft proof mode, so WYSIWYG....and much more accurately than LR. The new output sharpening tools are also terrific.
BTW, not only do you get virtually all paper profiles with IP, but you get to pick profiles for varying lighting conditions as well as color/gray scale.
Hurry, too, to get all the printer rebates.
The most important tools for great pics and prints are between the ears.....but this will ensure that the other tools aren't holding you back.
Jeff
-
How about P800 and Mirage instead of Imageprint?
Does it make sense for 17" printer? I will also have 3880 with piezography in the team to be driving by that potential software.
-
FWIW unesco: I couldn't find a lot of information on a number of RIP software packages out there. Mirage was one. There were others. Many seem as though they might be aimed at the commercial sized printer market.
Seems ImagePrint and QuadtoneRIP are the two major players folks have written about here and elsewhere who print for their own needs whether for proofing or for pro output completely under their own control. I could identify that ImagePrint works both for color and B&W - a fact that proved decisive among others in my own decision. I'm not sure whether QuadtoneRIP does more than B&W or not, but it certainly seemed to receive press on B&W. Some stunningly beautiful work is printed in monochrome with the latter, and if the Epson or Canon ink palette isn't your cup of tea for B&W, I'd suppose the commitment to explore these tools becomes more and more compelling.
-
FWIW unesco: I couldn't find a lot of information on a number of RIP software packages out there. Mirage was one. There were others. Many seem as though they might be aimed at the commercial sized printer market.
Seems ImagePrint and QuadtoneRIP are the two major players folks have written about here and elsewhere who print for their own needs whether for proofing or for pro output completely under their own control. I could identify that ImagePrint works both for color and B&W - a fact that proved decisive among others in my own decision. I'm not sure whether QuadtoneRIP does more than B&W or not, but it certainly seemed to receive press on B&W. Some stunningly beautiful work is printed in monochrome with the latter, and if the Epson or Canon ink palette isn't your cup of tea for B&W, I'd suppose the commitment to explore these tools becomes more and more compelling.
If you're running Piezo, then get QTR. Otherwise, for standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts not to get IP. Read my post above. And watch Kevin's video interviews on IP here on LuLa...it's more than a RIP.
Jeff
-
Thanks for the answers.
I use QTR with Epson ink and results are great, suppose will be better when I switch to Piezography soon.
I will have a look at IP review.
-
....... for standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts not to get IP. ..........
Jeff
Seems to me that with a P800 and Lightroom and standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts to spend more for software like Imageprint than you did for the printer itself.
Okay, that's a little harsh. But you get my point. I can't see how I can get a better print than I'm currently getting. And if it were somehow "better", the difference would be so tiny that for me, I couldn't possibly justify over $900 US extra expense.
Brad S
-
Seems to me that with a P800 and Lightroom and standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts to spend more for software like Imageprint than you did for the printer itself.
Okay, that's a little harsh. But you get my point. I can't see how I can get a better print than I'm currently getting. And if it were somehow "better", the difference would be so tiny that for me, I couldn't possibly justify over $900 US extra expense.
Brad S
Well, it's a heck of lot cheaper than buying custom profiling gear to get equivalent or better results with no real effort. That alone is worth the price of entry for me. It's not just about the final print (although results are better with new features like final output sharpening, etc); it's the process to get there. Not only do you get the profiles for virtually all papers (AND for different lighting conditions for each), but one is always in soft-proof mode, which is much better than LR, so WYSIWYG, with potentially significant savings in paper and ink.
IP also eliminates all the crap associated with the Apple-Epson-Adobe chain, especially when new iterations are issued. I think back to the color management issues that a past O/S upgrade introduced, as but one example. And one never has to worry again about forgetting or incorrectly inputting an Epson printer setting (or worrying about a print driver update) for any situation.....merely input the paper used and the desired profile and IP sets EVERYTHING behind the scenes.....properly.....and with better results. If I want to hang my prints under different lighting conditions, say for an exhibition, I can change the lighting profile with one click and re-print.
The P800 offered modest improvements to my 3800, which was a fine machine. It was worth the money. IP was not only worth the money, but it made life significantly easier for me, with better print results to boot. Over the long term, the costs are in the inks anyway, not in the machine or the software.
YMMV, as they say.
Jeff
-
Well, it's a heck of lot cheaper than buying custom profiling gear to get equivalent or better results with no real effort. That alone is worth the price of entry for me. It's not just about the final print (although results are better with new features like final output sharpening, etc); it's the process to get there. Not only do you get the profiles for virtually all papers (AND for different lighting conditions for each), but one is always in soft-proof mode, which is much better than LR, so WYSIWYG, with potentially significant savings in paper and ink. YMMV, as they say.
My view completely. There are folks out there who can print better than I can even when they're using no more than a pinhead attached to a stick and a bottle of ink. I suspect lots of folks on this site fit in this category. Me? I'm a fan of KISS. And somehow, being "done" with the post-processing software and setting it aside before moving on to print... even if it's loading a separate piece of software... just cements that process, keeps it simple or simple ERR, and stupid here (me) can figure that out better than trying to determine whether or not Aliens from Area 451 are controlling my printer's brain. Yes when it turns out badly; no, when it looks like I want it to. ;)
-
There are folks out there who can print better than I can even when they're using no more than a pinhead attached to a stick and a bottle of ink.
To quote myself from an earlier post... The most important tools for great pics and prints are between the ears.....but this will ensure that the other tools aren't holding you back.
The printer and software won't make you a better printer any more than the camera will make you a great photographer. But it's nice to have tools that do what you want/need them to do, and not otherwise get in the way.
Jeff
-
Save your money, the return is nowhere near the price of admission for Image print. YMMV
I have all the latest profiling gear in our studio, a Munki plus a new i1 Pro and here it sits.
The effort required in profiling for the the smallest improvements is just not worth it in my opinion.
I spent all this time and money on these gadgets and use 100% factory profiles, they are that good. (For me.)
You might be one of those folks that can spend hours on this just for the feel good factor.
Profiling yourself has it's place, in some cases you just have to make profiles or have someone make them for you.
I print almost 95% on canvas and laying 3 prints side by side with factory profile, i1 profile and Color Munki profile you cannot pick which is which.
-
It's about a lot more than the profiles for me, as already noted. There's a free demo for anyone to make his/her own decision before committing.
I don't print on canvas, but I did find this excerpt from a review of an earlier IP iteration...
"If you are printing on canvas or a rougher surfaced paper, ImagePrint has unique capability in providing four and eight pass printing at 1440 dpi. In this mode, the print heads will make four or eight passes over the same print area and gradually build up the ink to make the image. The dot size for each drop of ink is modulated, as well as its exact placement. In so doing, it creates far more precision and uses far more dots of ink to slowly build up the image while it absorbs into the print surface. Try it!
In 2880 dpi mode, the print method is more direct, but still gradually builds up the image on the paper across the printhead. You can observe the print process on your printer and see how the image is slowly built up across the printhead. By controlling the amount of ink that is applied at each stage, there is more subtlety to, and exactness in, the final print. For me, this is critical in making a fine art print, especially in regard to precision in the lower zones of the image in my monochrome prints."
I have no idea if this is true, or if the results are visible. But it's free to try.
Jeff
-
If it's printing at 1440 or 2880 dpi, then the number of passes is not relevant to that resolution, which is achievable through the driver. Indeed, putting in down significantly later than the first pass actually presents an issue with control of dot gain.
The driver already precisely places dots and chooses an appropriate dot size based on the resolution (note that a RIP can only use the sets of variable dots sizes available at each resolution that the printer allows - they are all limited / capable in exactly the same way.
I also wonder if they really mean 4 or 8 passes of the head without any movement of the media, because 4 and 8 pass modes are standard even in the driver, with the head micro-stepping (i.e. less than the width of the print head) - you can see this by watching the print being done and seeing the image building up. This is not unique...
Just saying.
-
Just saying.
Exactly. And then there's trying.
I'm glad I tried it for my own applications.
Jeff
-
You said you don't print on canvas, so exactly how did you try that?
What I'm saying is that it appears that there needs to be some clarification from the vendor regarding the technical details being provided, because they're too vague to confirm whether there's actually a benefit or whether it's just re-stating existing technical capacity in a way that makes it sound like an exclusive feature. You can't say for sure based on the information provided, so I would suggest prospective users check further.
-
You said you don't print on canvas, so exactly how did you try that?
What I'm saying is that it appears that there needs to be some clarification from the vendor regarding the technical details being provided, because they're too vague to confirm whether there's actually a benefit or whether it's just re-stating existing technical capacity in a way that makes it sound like an exclusive feature. You can't say for sure based on the information provided, so I would suggest prospective users check further.
I said two things.
One, I tried IP for my own applications, needs and preferences (not canvas). It did everything I wanted, and more.
Two, I noted that demos were free and suggested others try IP for their own needs (like canvas prints) if they're curious about the product. (The demo adds watermarks, but still provides user experience.)
I don't have a vested interest one way or the other, but I don't find any value in negative critiques by folks who haven't actually tried something by themselves. As Fred Picker used to answer students when they asked about how something would work, he generally said "try it and see".
Jeff
-
It's not a negative critique. It's a technical assessment of their claim that you posted. I have some knowledge in the area and I'm sharing that as a suggested consideration. My advice was similar - to check it out and ask them for more information about their technical claim.
Doing it for yourself is fine, but beware of the placebo effect, too. It's worthwhile asking people to blind test a few results to back up your own opinion, as we end up biasing our views based on our expectations and hopes, seeing things we think are better because we assume they should be (and that's all of us, myself included).
As I said, it could be that they are not microstepping and are literally printing over and over - if so, it would be great if they shared information about the issue of dot gain and layering ink on ink rather than on substrate. That's just one aspect.
-
Here's a recent thread reflecting my earlier comments about IP and why I'm glad to no longer have to deal with Apple-Adobe-Epson messes.... http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114851.0
Jeff
-
FWIW Department: So just printed my 1st image with the Epson SC P800 under ImagePrint operation. Wow! I am a happy camper! This is just sooooooo easy its putting a smile on my face after a long, long week. I'm hardly scratching the surface... but hey, this could be habit forming. Nah... not at all necessary. And yes, many cried, "Save your money. You don't need it!" And they were right of course, but I didn't, and what I'm saving is time. More time to shoot more photos and less time spent on post for a high quality output means I can do much more. Not missing a chance to get that next shot? Priceless! Don't sell yourself short. Try it.
Mark D. Segal: True to your word, adding softproofing to the workflow is a real step forward. Thank you for the push! With ImagePrint adding the matching of paper and printer profiles, it's not going to take a lot of wizardry to move ahead from here. Thank you for your notes here! I am indebted. And thanks to our host, Kevin Raber... whose praise of Capture One, ImagePrint, and even Epson... I have to say have been rock solid guidance.
-
I have used ImagePrint with my 7900 for years and considering replacing the 7900 with either a P7000 or I might just go the P800 route. If you print an 11x14 or 16x20 then you might well not need IP at all. If you occasionally need to print a job that has 2 each 16x20's, 115 each 5x7's, 6 each 8x10's and while you're at it you want to print 2 passport photos 2x2 then you will LOVE Imageprint. All those can be easily and quickly laid out before issuing just one print command. A job like this probably sounds like fiction to those who deal primarily in fine art but that job is a routine kind of job for me. It only takes a minute to do this in IP. For notecards I have laid them out in IP and print them on larger sheets or rolls of Hot Press Natural, then cut them...works for me.