Epson 9800

[sradom]

I currently have an Epson 9800 printer using ImagePrint and Phatte black ink. I want to upgrade my printer and get away from having to use ImagePrint. What are your thoughts regarding the 9890 vs. the 9900. Seems to me that the 9900 is the way to go for its wider color gamut. Can you really see the difference in large landscape prints between the two printers? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[bill t.]

Looking only at the gamut issue, you would need to be printing on very wide gamut media to really see a significant difference in your large prints.

When going from a 9880 to an 8300 with my mainly canvas prints, I noticed some modest gains in the blue, magenta, violet area, but nothing overwhelmingly dramatic.  However, on wide gamut glossy papers and canvases the 8300 is clearly superior...provided I have post processed the images to take advantage of the wider available gamut.

So for rather limited gamut media like canvas and many matte papers, going to a wide gamut printer will bring modest gains that might not jump out with side by side print comparisons.  For wide gamut media expect big gains, but only if you push the envelope with your post processing.  For instance, if you have  images that you soft proofed for a moderate gamut printer and media, you might have to go back to proofing to realize the image's full potential with a wider gamut printer and media.

[Peter McLennan]

I purchased a used 9800 running ImagePrint and Phatte black ink.  The previous owner intended to upgrade to a 9890.  Contact me offline for his contact info.

peteratsignalfilmsdotcom

[Wayne Fox]

The visual difference between prints using a 9890 and a 9900 when printing landscape images will most likely be imperceptible with perhaps a few exceptions where the extended gamut might provide a very minor benefit.  The difference in output between a 9800 and a 9890 will be more apparent that the differences between a 9890 and a 9900.   I have an 11880 which is the same ink set as the 9890, and a 9900, one at work and one at home.  I print based on where I am, really don't worry about which printer.

[langier]

I have a 9800 and 9900 side-by-side in my studio. Using my custom profiles, I really can't tell the difference in prints on the same media between the two for my images. Maybe I'm not pushing my images hard enough...

The main reason for getting the 9900 is for canvas and the beefed-up cutting system that handles it. It's done well for the past year and a half.

I'd say at the most it's going to be subtlety different since the 9900 has the upgraded magenta and the orange and green. Most of the rest are the same K3 inks as the 9800. As always, YRMV.

[Wayne Fox]

I have a 9800 and 9900 side-by-side in my studio. Using my custom profiles, I really can't tell the difference in prints on the same media between the two for my images. Maybe I'm not pushing my images hard enough...

Just curious as to your workflow as far as bit depth/working space. I can definitely see a difference in many images (not all, depends on the image and colors) between a 9800 and even a 9880. When you say you are not pushing your images far enough, to me it isn't about pushing them, it's just making sure my workflow isn't clipping colors by using too small of a working space.

The difference between a 9880/9890 and a 9900 isn't as apparent since most of the inks are the same.  The added orange and green inks in the 9900 will show some advantages in some images but with landscapes both are really good.