New 17" Epson Stylus Pro 3800 Printer

[tim atherton]

http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_09-26-06.html

http://www.inkjetart.com/Epson_3800_Pro/

[Bruce Watson]

Photokina should certainly be interesting, yes?

[JoelBelmont]

I am looking to buy a 7800. Do you think it would be worthwhile to wait until spring when epson might incorporate the advanced technology of the 3800 into the 24" size printers?

Thanks,
~Joel Belmont

[Ed Richards]

HP has announced high end 24 and 44 inch pigment printers using a bunch of inks, so Epson will be under pressure to do something in response to the 7800 and 9800.

[Ted Harris]

HP's new offerings may present a challenge to Epson but, for them to do so,HP willhave to prove to professional users that they have licked problems with their mechnaical functions that have plagued them in the past.

One additiona thought on the 3800 v. the 4800. All speculation of course since we haven't seen one yet but, the touted improvements in ink handling maki elittle difference if you use ImagePrint or Colorburst, both of which give you very precise ink control and all ow you to print either matt or glossy with whichever black you have loaded (although doing it all with Photoblack is preferred); same for the dot pattern they are touting. So, while I think it is a good value, I look at the lack of roll handling as the major factor and a big minus.

[Ken Lee]

Does anyone know if the problems with Metamerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_%28color%29)have been alleviated in the newer Ultrachrome inks ? Do the Canon printers suffer from this ?

I ask, because when printing on glossy paper, my Epson 2200 shows distinct metamerism. My profiles were doubtless done under daylight, a balanced light source - and work perfectly when the prints are viewed under daylight. But when I view my prints under incandescant light, there is a strong shoft towards Magenta.

[Leonard Evens]

This may finally be just what I want. I am happy the the price is lower than the 4800, but the most imporant features are compactnes and lighter weight. Those will make it much easier to fit into my relatively small condo study where I do my digital work, and it will be easier on my arthritic back. I look forward to finding out about the details.

[Bruce Watson]

I am looking to buy a 7800. Do you think it would be worthwhile to wait until spring when epson might incorporate the advanced technology of the 3800 into the 24" size printers?

I'd wait until Photokina is over to see what the manufacturers announce. That information will likely point you in one direction or another.

[Ted Harris]

Ken, The answer to your question is that the new K3 inks almsot totally eliminate any metamerism problems that we used to see, that is with the Epson drivers. Any of the K3 inkset printers used with the right RIP will totally eliminate metamarism (and I believe that should be the case with the 2200 as well).

[JohnnyV]

Does anyone know if the problems with Metamerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_%28color%29)have been alleviated in the newer Ultrachrome inks ? Do the Canon printers suffer from this ?

I ask, because when printing on glossy paper, my Epson 2200 shows distinct metamerism. My profiles were doubtless done under daylight, a balanced light source - and work perfectly when the prints are viewed under daylight. But when I view my prints under incandescant light, there is a strong shoft towards Magenta.

With your 2200 you are probably seeing more than just metamerism. On glossy the 2200 also has very bad gloss differential and bronzing. Gloss differential is seen where the highlights meet paper white, there is a clear distinction between the two. Bronzing is a "reversal" of ink density/tone in the shadow areas. Both are seen when the print reflects light at a certain angle.

The good news is the K3 inks eliminate 90+% of the above problems. My 4800 is a real workhorse and output is excellent.

The 3800 looks interesting...to bad it doesn't use roll paper. If it takes custom sheets longer than what is stated then it's an excellent value.

Wish I didn't have to switch the matte/glossy black carts...then the 4800 would be perfect.

[Jack Flesher]

I am looking to buy a 7800. Do you think it would be worthwhile to wait until spring when epson might incorporate the advanced technology of the 3800 into the 24" size printers?

Thanks,
~Joel Belmont

First, there is only an issue if you want to print on both surfaced and matte art papers regularly; if you regularly print on one type of paper only, then the cost to swap the black inks is moot. If however you do print regularly on both, that is different -- and in fact the main attraction of this new 3800 printer.

To answer your question, undoubtedly Epson will add this functionality to the 78/9800 printers at some point, but I would not hold my breath for that happening anytime soon. I would guess it won't happen until the next breakthrough in ink...

Epson said in a press announcement several months back after getting slammed for the swap cost, that their "primary" customers for the 78/9800 series of printers were industrial users (labs) and they would simply buy a second printer if they regularly printed on both materials. (FWIW, there is very little difference between Mk output on with Ultrachrome (76/9600) and K3 (78/9800) and I have since talked to two different lab owners that kept a 76/9600 around just for running the matte ink.)


Cheers,

[JoelBelmont]

Epson said in a press announcement several months back after getting slammed for the swap cost, that their "primary" customers for the 78/9800 series of printers were industrial users (labs) and they would simply buy a second printer if they regularly printed on both materials. (FWIW, there is very little difference between Mk output on with Ultrachrome (76/9600) and K3 (78/9800) and I have since talked to two different lab owners that kept a 76/9600 around just for running the matte ink.)

The switching is nice, even though I might only use matte ink.

It seemed like the quality of the prints was also better on the newer epson technology (albeit it might be a while to see it in the larger printers) given some of the comparisons.

Ideally, I would prefer a printer in the 24" to 44" size... I know some have made the case that it is just as good to with the 76/9600 and just use the newer inks or RIP?

Can anyone speak to the pros/cons of going this route vs. waiting for a new version of the Epsons, in terms of print quality?

Also, I have a Monaco color calibration system that came with the 4870. Is this good enough for B&W work, or would it be worth the money to have inkjetart.com (or similar) do custom profiles?

Thanks,
~Joel

[Jack Flesher]

Ideally, I would prefer a printer in the 24" to 44" size... I know some have made the case that it is just as good to with the 76/9600 and just use the newer inks or RIP?

Can anyone speak to the pros/cons of going this route vs. waiting for a new version of the Epsons, in terms of print quality?

Thanks,
~Joel

If you print either color or B&W on surfaced photo paers, then the K3 inks in the 78/9800 are clearly superior to the UC inks in the 76/9600 printers. The biggest differences with the K3 are less bronzing (essentially none visible) and less gloss differential (much better than the UC ink -- though still some visible -- but only at angles well beyond normal viewing angles).

HOWEVER, once a print is mounted behind glass or plexi, these differences become quite small -- small enough I suspect they would go un-noiced by most viewers and probably more than a few photographers.

Cheers,

[JoelBelmont]

Would there be any difference in print quality, in terms of resolution, given the new "Ultra-Modern Image Processing Technology"? Also, are the print heads the same (as the x600 series, or are the newer ones better?

And is there an archival difference between the UC and K3 inks?

Can the x600's be fitted to use K3's?

Thanks,
~Joel

[Ken Lee]

"Ken, The answer to your question is that the new K3 inks almsot totally eliminate any metamerism problems that we used to see, that is with the Epson drivers. Any of the K3 inkset printers used with the right RIP will totally eliminate metamarism (and I believe that should be the case with the 2200 as well)".

This sounds very encouraging ! ...which RIP do you recommend ?

But when I bought the 2200, I remember reading something to the effect that Epson had finally addressed their Metamerism issue with Ultrachrome Inks. I will contact InkjetArt.com (http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/) to get some sample prints.

"With your 2200 you are probably seeing more than just metamerism. On glossy the 2200 also has very bad gloss differential and bronzing. Gloss differential is seen where the highlights meet paper white, there is a clear distinction between the two. Bronzing is a "reversal" of ink density/tone in the shadow areas. Both are seen when the print reflects light at a certain angle.

The good news is the K3 inks eliminate 90+% of the above problems. My 4800 is a real workhorse and output is excellent."

Wonderful - The gloss differential and bronzing is pronounced. I would love to get rid of that too !

[Jack Flesher]

If you have a good paper profile, you probably won't need a RIP -- the new printers are that good.