Printer recommendation for nice colour, B&W, and alt-processes

[walter23]

Due to circumstances (I have to move into a small bachelor suite in Vancouver for work) I can't really use my darkroom as much as I'd like. I think the best thing for me to do at the moment is to get into digital printing. I would like something that will make nice prints, and also enable really good alt-process digital negatives (for cyanotype & van dyke, mainly, but possibly other experiments in the future).

11x14" is about my maximum size. I do love printing 16x20s in the darkroom, but I don't think I can afford such a printer at the moment!

I know about the Epsons with their nice mix of black and grey inks, etc, but I'm really not sure about the other brands.

So recommendations would be appreciated.

Budget is in the $1000 (Canadian) range, give or take a couple hundred. Probably translates to $700-$1000 in USA prices (I won't want to buy one shipped from B&H or something, so it'll be an overpriced local purchase).

Quality is a big consideration but of course consumable prices & availability are factors. I'll mostly be printing on mid-weight matte paper and transparency material for alt processes.

[Gem Singer]

Take a look at the HP Photosmart Pro B9180 printer.

Judging from your description, it will meet all of your needs.

I really like mine.

[Joanna Carter]

Due to circumstances (I have to move into a small bachelor suite in Vancouver for work) I can't really use my darkroom as much as I'd like. I think the best thing for me to do at the moment is to get into digital printing. I would like something that will enable really nice alt-process digital negatives for cyanotype & van dyke, mainly, but possibly other experiments in the future.
You mention the Epsons and I would second that opinion. I have an Epson R2400 which does up to A3+ (13" x 19") and the B&W results, when properly calibrated are so good that I have sold a print to a wet darkroom worker. :D

[Kerik Kouklis]

I would highly recommend the Epson 3800. Great for prints and maybe the best printer out there for making digital negatives. The 2400 give comparable results, but will cost you more in the not-so-long run because of the significantly higher ink costs. Also, the 3800 has both the matt and photo-black inks installed (you will want to use the photo black for negatives). With a 2400 you have to switch out the cartrigdes which eats up ink.

[Jeremy Moore]

Walter, I'll suggest the Epson 3800. It's a 17" wide model that is more expensive than the 13" models, but you will save lots and lots in the long run on ink. If you're wanting to get into digital negatives I would currently avoid anything but an Epson printer as this is what the "digital negative community" has standardized on and gives you access to the QTR printing RIP to make digital negatives.

All prices are from BHPhoto.com on August 20, 2009 as they have all of the items for sale and are a reputable company to quote.

I'm also focusing on using matte black ink and ignoring photo black as you say you want to print with mid-weight matte paper and on transparency material--both of these can be printed with just the matte black. If you decide to print on a Photo Black surface or want the ability to do so then the Epson 3800 wins out as it can switch cartridges without using up as much ink as in the R2880. Other brands do a *much* better job with this, but this still isn't a good enough reason to choose something other than Epson for digital negative printing right now.

Epson R2880 (current top of the line pigment 13" printer from Epson)
Price: $719.95 (+$200 rebate).
Comes with 1 set of ink, 8 carts with ~15mL of ink in each cart (I have heard numbers from 12-17, so the average seems to be a good way to go).
8 ink carts * 15mL of ink = 120mL
Extra 15mL carts are $12.95.
So you're getting $103.60 worth of ink with the printer.

Epson 3800 (current suggested printer for alt process digi-negs by a number of those who teach it)
Price: $1,145 (+$300 rebate)
Comes with 1 set of ink, 8 carts with 90mL of ink in each cart.
8 ink carts * 90mL of ink = 720mL
Extra 90mL carts are $49.95
So you're getting $399.60 worth of ink with the printer.

Comparing prices:
Epson 3800: $745.40 ($1,145 - $399.60 of included ink, still have the $300 rebate)
Epson R2880: $616.35 ($719.95 - $103.60 of included ink, still have the $200 rebate)

Comparing prices with comparable amounts of ink purchased:
Epson 3800: $1,145 ($1,145, still have the $300 rebate, for 720 mL of ink)
Epson R2880: $1,238.95 ($719.95, still have the $200 rebate, and comes with 120mL of ink. Must add 5x 15mL ink carts for each color at a cost of 5 * 8 * $12.95 = $519)

Then on top of that you have to buy 6 Epson R2880 carts to equal 1 Epson 3800 ink cartridge after you've gone through your first 90mL in each color.
Cost of 90mL of ink.
Epson 3800: $49.95 (1x 90mL ink cartridge at $49.95)
Epson R2880: $77.70 (6x 15mL ink cartridge at $12.95)

I don't expect there to be a quality difference beyond the negligible between these two printers. The Epson 3800 is one of Epson's "Pro" printers which I would expect are built to a higher standard than a lower-tier model like the R2880. The 3800 also gives you the ability to print 17" wide so you can do your 16x20 prints, but the 3800 doesn't let you use roll media. Finally, here are the physical dimensions and weights for each of the printers. The footprint of the 3800 isn't much larger than the R2880, but will need a stronger table :)

Epson 3800: 27 x 10 x 15" @ 43.2 lbs
Epson R2880: 24.3 x 8.4 x 12.7" @ 26.9 lbs

[Jeremy Moore]

Also, the 3800 has both the matt and photo-black inks installed (you will want to use the photo black for negatives).

I know Ron (http://www.ronreeder.com/) has matte black in his printer, but that's the joy of QTR, you can avoid the use of the black ink entirely :)

[walter23]

I hadn't thought of the 3800; I didn't think there were 17" printers in my price range. Doing 16x20s would sure be sweet! And the ink savings is a good motivation (I think it works out to $0.55 / ml for the 3800 but $0.85 / ml for the smaller cartridges of the 2880).

Thanks for the suggestions and breakdown.

[darr]

Another vote for the Epson R2400.

[Jay W]

I've been comtemplating an LF printer also. What about the 4880. B&H has that at $1788 with a $500 rebate (and $144 shipping:eek: ).Without shipping that about $450 more than the 3800. It includes 110 ml of ink (can use 220 ml, $0.51/ml), has the newer vivid magenta (if that matters) and can use roll paper. Min size is an 8x10 vs. a 4x6 for the 3800.

So does that have a nice dither pattern for digital negs? Are you out there on your own as for workflow? (I'd like the option of digital negatives down the road.) I'd like to print both color and B&W, and I can leave my current 1280 as B&W (MIS).

Thanks,

Jay

[Ron Marshall]

I hadn't thought of the 3800; I didn't think there were 17" printers in my price range. Doing 16x20s would sure be sweet! And the ink savings is a good motivation (I think it works out to $0.55 / ml for the 3800 but $0.85 / ml for the smaller cartridges of the 2880).

Thanks for the suggestions and breakdown.

As others have said, although initially more expensive, when you consider it comes with $400 of ink inluded, and lower ink costs throughout its life, the 3800 is a much better deal than the 2880.

I am totally satisfied with mine.

[PenGun]

Just get the 3800. You'll be glad you did.

[Jay W]

Correction on ink costs: $0.40/ml for 220.

Jay

[venchka]

Walter,

I don't know if they will ship north of the border, but Epson sometimes has refurbished 3800 printers in their online clearance center. Make sure the printer comes with new ink cartridges.

When you factor in the value of the ink, the 3800 with full ink cartridges is only a few dollars more than the 2xxx series printers.

[Kerik Kouklis]

I know Ron (http://www.ronreeder.com/) has matte black in his printer, but that's the joy of QTR, you can avoid the use of the black ink entirely :)

In my experience, matte black will make your negatives print grainy in pt/pd. I've seen this both on the 3800 and 2400. And why would you want to avoid black altogether?? The beauty of QTR is that allows you to use all the inks to produce negatives that print baby's-butt smooth. IMO, this is a much better alternative to digi-neg processes that rely on a colorized negative (often GREEN) to create UV density.

[Don Hutton]

Epson 3800...

[rdenney]

I hadn't thought of the 3800; I didn't think there were 17" printers in my price range. Doing 16x20s would sure be sweet! And the ink savings is a good motivation (I think it works out to $0.55 / ml for the 3800 but $0.85 / ml for the smaller cartridges of the 2880).

Thanks for the suggestions and breakdown.

Also, take a look at the Epson store for refurbished models. I just bought a 3800 a few weeks ago for $900, and the only thing it didn't have that was absolutely original was the box. It seems to be perfect, so far. Whatever caused it to be refurbed has been corrected.

I bought my V750 that way, too, and it was also perfect.

Rick "you won't notice the ink savings, though, if you print mostly 16x20's" Denney

[sanking]

In my experience, matte black will make your negatives print grainy in pt/pd. I've seen this both on the 3800 and 2400. And why would you want to avoid black altogether?? The beauty of QTR is that allows you to use all the inks to produce negatives that print baby's-butt smooth. IMO, this is a much better alternative to digi-neg processes that rely on a colorized negative (often GREEN) to create UV density.

I agree with Kerik about the PK on the 3800 gives negatives that print with much finer grain than the MK inks. Some of the colorized negatives, green in particular, print with a lot of grain on the 3800.

On the other hand, my understanding is that the new Epson 7880 has a true treen color, i.e. not mix of yellow and cyan) that prints incredibly smooth with UV processes. But of course printer is in another league than the ones being compared here.

Sandy King

[Jeremy Moore]

In my experience, matte black will make your negatives print grainy in pt/pd. I've seen this both on the 3800 and 2400. And why would you want to avoid black altogether?? The beauty of QTR is that allows you to use all the inks to produce negatives that print baby's-butt smooth. IMO, this is a much better alternative to digi-neg processes that rely on a colorized negative (often GREEN) to create UV density.

You know, that's true, I remember seeing a grain to Ron's prints, but didn't realize that was caused by the inks. Good to know!

[sanking]

On the other hand, my understanding is that the new Epson 7880 has a true treen color, i.e. not mix of yellow and cyan) that prints incredibly smooth with UV processes.

Sandy King


Folks, that was supposed to read, "my understanding is that the new Epson 7880 has a true green color, (i.e. not mix of yellow and cyan, but green in one cartridge) that prints incredibly smooth with UV processes."

Sandy King

[D. Bryant]

One more vote for the Epson 3800, though I suspect that it's coming to the end of it's life cycle based on the previous history of Epson marketing.

Even though I own a 3800 there are times when I wish I had purchased the 4880. It shares the same technology of the 3800, larger ink carts can be installed making it less expensive to operate and it has a roll holder. And it can print longer prints than the 3800 which is limited to 37.4 inches by the Epson driver.

If you have custom ICC profiles for the 3800, the soft proofing feature in Photoshop is invaluable once one understands how to use it properly. That definitely saves ink and paper.

The 2400 and the 2880 are total ink hogs and I would avoid those as they have a high level of ink waste making them very expensive to operate.


Don Bryant

[Dave Aharonian]

Hi Walter,

I agree completely with what Kerik has said. 3800 all the way. I have one of if you want to do any sort of a test before you take the plunge and buy one.

Dave

[Jay W]

I look at saving a $1 or $2 (or more) per sheet of paper, and it seems hard to turn down the savings of going with the 4880 and rolls of paper (compared to the 3800). Also, a 4x5 corresponds to a 17x21" and a 35mm cooresponds to a 17x25". Some papers are only available in 22" or 24" lengths. Then there's all those Hassy negatives which would work well with roll paper.

The problems are, I've only seen digitial neg workflows with 3800 (but I haven't researched it seriously). The 4880 printer is big and space is an issue. I've have to commit to matt black or photo black since the cost of switching is more than obnoxious.

Thanks,

Jay

[Jay W]

Maybe I should ask, if you buy roll paper, cut it, and flatten it (store in a box or something) for a number of weeks, will it be flat enough to run through a 3800 without any head strikes? Anyone done something similar?

Thanks,

Jay

[Don Hutton]

Maybe I should ask, if you buy roll paper, cut it, and flatten it (store in a box or something) for a number of weeks, will it be flat enough to run through a 3800 without any head strikes? Anyone done something similar?

Thanks,

Jay
I doubt it will help too much. Just about the only complaint I have with my 3800 is head strikes on certain papers - big sheets (17x25) of Harman FB Glossy almost always produce them - the paper curl moves dramatically as it absorbs ink and I think this is what causes some of it. I have a 7800 too, and the paper handling with the vacuum just works better. Also, there may be less of a cost saving than you think with rolls vs cut sheets (for example,a the price per square foot for Harman is very close in rolls or big sheets).

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not very familiar with the latest Epson models or Canadian exchange rates but a 3800, especially a refurbished one, should be within or very close to your budget. A 3800 would allow you to do the 11x14s you usually make and also to go up to the 16x20s you'd like to make. For me lack of a paper roll isn't a downside, I never used roll paper on other printers even when I've had the capability. Length limited to 37 inches is also not a downside for me, I never print even to 37 inches anyhow. Switching back and forth between photo black and matte black is easy with the 3800 and uses only a small amount of ink. I don't know about comparative inks costs between the 3800 and other current Epson printers but I've owned my 3800 for over two years and for the first time had to replace a couple of the cartridges that came with it a few weeks ago. I agree with Don about avoiding the 2400 (also the 2200 if you happened to be thinking of it) because of ink usage. I'm amazed at the difference in ink usage between my former 2200 and my 3800 even considering the larger cartridges in the 3800.

Apart from the particular model, I'd suggest sticking with Epson. I'm sure HP and Canon make fine printers but if you have a question or problem with any Epson printer used by serious photographers you can ask it here or on other forums and get tons of responses from photographers doing the same thing you're doing. Ask a question about other brands and you may find a few people who happen to own the same printer and are doing what you're doing but nothing like the responses you'll get from Epson users. Plus the four Epsons I've owned have been super-reliable and operated for years (8 years and still going in the case of the 1280 my wife now uses) without any significant problems. Not a universal experience of course but that's been my experience.

[Rider]

Be careful when assuming that all of the ink that comes with the printer is usable. Although the 3800 may come with "$400 dollars worth of ink", a large percentage of that will be used up when charging the printer.

I wonder whether refurbished printers also go through a recharging process. If not, that could make them an even better value if they come with a full set of inks.

My 2 cents (being an Epson 4000 owner) is that the 3800 is a great printer. But if at all possible I would spring for a 4880 for robustness and longevity.

Btw, a used Epson 4000 might be just the thing for digital negatives.

Also, Epson has a new generation of inks that they have only impelemented in the 24" and larger printers. They should be implementing it in the 17" printers in the near future. That's a win-win. Either you'll be wooed by the new printers, or you'll be able to pick up an old model for less.

[Jay W]

Also, there may be less of a cost saving than you think with rolls vs cut sheets (for example,a the price per square foot for Harman is very close in rolls or big sheets).

True, it's only about 9% cheaper. Interesting....

Thanks,

Jay

[D. Bryant]

True, it's only about 9% cheaper. Interesting....

Thanks,

Jay

My comment about the ability of the 4880 to use roll paper wasn't driver by cost considerations though some paper manufacturers will occasionally offer discounts on paper rolls. Rather my comment was made regarding the relative difficulty using the rear feed slot of the 3800 for certain media, most especially if you wish to print long pano prints with a RIP. The shew can kill you.

Some roll media can be cut into sheets and coaxed to lie flat. The gelatin coated baryta papers and RC based are probably less like to relax but if they are weighted and stored flat they do offer a potential savings benefit. As they say your millage may vary.

Don

[D. Bryant]

Btw, a used Epson 4000 might be just the thing for digital negatives.


The 4000 is notorious for banding when printing on transparency materials. Don't purchase one for digital negatives.

Don Bryant

[Rider]

The 4000 is notorious for banding when printing on transparency materials. Don't purchase one for digital negatives.

Don Bryant


Is transparency used for digital negatives? I thought regular paper is what's normally used.

[Ken Lee]

Concerning the 3800 or 2400: Using the standard Epson Ultrachrome inks, don't you notice color shift, when viewing under different lighting conditions ?

I make warm-toned images on a 2400, calibrated for the D50 standard of daylight lighting. Viewed in daylight, they look fine. Under incandescent and florescent lighting, they take on a strong Magenta cast.

Is this a property of the inks, or of the paper/ink combination ? Can it be overcome ?

Can anyone recommend a glossy or semi-gloss inkjet paper with good longevity, that exhibits less color shift than, say, Epson Premium Glossy ?

...Pretty please ?

[venchka]

Is transparency used for digital negatives? I thought regular paper is what's normally used.

Yes. Pictorico OHP is mentioned frequently as being one of the best.

[Ron Marshall]

Be careful when assuming that all of the ink that comes with the printer is usable. Although the 3800 may come with "$400 dollars worth of ink", a large percentage of that will be used up when charging the printer.



Only 20% of the ink is used for charging the printer.

[Jay W]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but if someone considering a 3800 I think they should consider a 4880.


Also, Epson has a new generation of inks that they have only impelemented in the 24" and larger printers. They should be implementing it in the 17" printers in the near future.

Somewhat related to this is an unreliable quote from
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Raw7

David Siegel , Nov 27, 2008; 12:32 a.m.

I just heard through a somewhat unreliable source, (aren't they all) that epson won't be making a 4900 printer. Reason given was the design of the much larger print head would necessitate redesigning the whole 4000 series printer and it's not likely they will do that. Also, the 7900/9900 printer is not a replacement for the 7880/9880 it's a new printer designed not only for printing photos but also for better proofing. If this is true, and some of it makes sense to me, I wouldn't be holding my breath too long. I'd jump on that nice rebate they have on the 4880 right now and start having some fun.

-The rebate. I assume a refurb unit from Epson does not include the rebate. I see no mention on it with the refurb 3800s (but there is a $100 rebate-USA site). So a refurb with free shipping might be a little more expensive than a regular with the $300 rebate.

-I've been using MIS UT2 inks for a while on photo rag 308. I like the setup. I see that MIS makes inks for the 4880 (and has cartridges or empty cart that you can fill). They don't support the 3800. I'm pretty damn new to color printing, but I assume I'd have to make custom profiles if I used MIS ink? Comments? Anyone going that route?

Thanks again,

Jay

[D. Bryant]

I'm pretty damn new to color printing, but I assume I'd have to make custom profiles if I used MIS ink? Comments? Anyone going that route?

Thanks again,

Jay

Jay,

Yes you are correct. Visit Eric Chan's 3800 website for tons on information on the 3800. He also can make custom ICC profiles for color and ABW printing.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Can anyone recommend a glossy or semi-gloss inkjet paper with good longevity, that exhibits less color shift than, say, Epson Premium Glossy ?

...Pretty please ?

Harmon Fiber Gloss AL or Ilford Fiber Gold Silk if you like a little texture.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Yes. Pictorico OHP is mentioned frequently as being one of the best.

Freestyle Arista OHP is a drop in replacement for Pictorico.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Is transparency used for digital negatives? I thought regular paper is what's normally used.
Yes transparency film is used for digital negatives for processes that use UV light to expose with.

Paper negs can be used for silver gelatin printing.

Don Bryant

[Rider]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but if someone considering a 3800 I think they should consider a 4880.



Somewhat related to this is an unreliable quote from
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Raw7

David Siegel , Nov 27, 2008; 12:32 a.m.

I just heard through a somewhat unreliable source, (aren't they all) that epson won't be making a 4900 printer. Reason given was the design of the much larger print head would necessitate redesigning the whole 4000 series printer and it's not likely they will do that. Also, the 7900/9900 printer is not a replacement for the 7880/9880 it's a new printer designed not only for printing photos but also for better proofing. If this is true, and some of it makes sense to me, I wouldn't be holding my breath too long. I'd jump on that nice rebate they have on the 4880 right now and start having some fun.

-The rebate. I assume a refurb unit from Epson does not include the rebate. I see no mention on it with the refurb 3800s (but there is a $100 rebate-USA site). So a refurb with free shipping might be a little more expensive than a regular with the $300 rebate.

-I've been using MIS UT2 inks for a while on photo rag 308. I like the setup. I see that MIS makes inks for the 4880 (and has cartridges or empty cart that you can fill). They don't support the 3800. I'm pretty damn new to color printing, but I assume I'd have to make custom profiles if I used MIS ink? Comments? Anyone going that route?

Thanks again,

Jay

It's hard to believe that they wouldn't push the new inks down to the 17" printers, but what do I know.

Canon introduces new printers by the dozen. How old is the 3800 now?

[rdenney]

Be careful when assuming that all of the ink that comes with the printer is usable. Although the 3800 may come with "$400 dollars worth of ink", a large percentage of that will be used up when charging the printer.

I wonder whether refurbished printers also go through a recharging process. If not, that could make them an even better value if they come with a full set of inks.

My refurb model directly from Epson was absolutely clean as if brand new, and it came with new cartridges, none more than a month old. Yes, it charges the lines, and that uses up about a quarter of the cartridge contents. But the other 3/4 is still enough to make a large number of prints for those who are careful.

Other than the issue of changing back and forth between matte and glossy black, the 4800 series seems to be built for a production environment while the 3800 seems to be built for photographers who make only a handful of big prints of their best work. One can always put small sheets in the printer--sizes that would waste a lot of roll paper. I make test prints at 8x10 before committing to larger print sizes, and that saves on ink, too.

It's expensive to make big prints no matter how you do it. It was true in the darkroom, too, especially for people who made occasional prints rather than going into production.

Rick "who compared a 4800 to a 3800 closely before deciding on the 3800 for home use" Denney

[Greg Miller]

Although the 3800 may come with "$400 dollars worth of ink", a large percentage of that will be used up when charging the printer.


The ink is not being used up. It is mostly just filling up the tubing between the cartridge and the print head and charging the print head. So the ink will end up being used for your prints. The true implication is really at the back end of the life of the printer. Whenever you sell or destroy the printer, there will be ink in the tubing that will not have been used. But for anyone who does much printing, this amount of ink depreciated over the total number of prints made during the life of the printer is not meaningful.

[Ken Lee]

Harmon Fiber Gloss AL or Ilford Fiber Gold Silk if you like a little texture.
Don Bryant

Thanks !!

[venchka]

Freestyle Arista OHP is a drop in replacement for Pictorico.

Don Bryant

Thanks Don! That's good to know.

[Jay W]

True, it's only about 9% cheaper. Interesting....

... the Gold Fibre is actually more expensive in rolls, and Epson Exhibition fiber is not available in rolls.

One more tib-bit, if you're buying with a rebate in mind, you have to purchase from an authorized Epson dealer. So Amazon offers some very cheap shipping and a good price, but I don't think they qualify.

Jay

[Jay W]

Just a follow up. Thanks for your info, I ended up going with the 4880. There were a number of reasons:

-The difference in price between the 3800 and 4880 was $345
-I have various formats (35, 6x6, 4x5, plus a few pano's) so roll paper can be a benefit
-The 4880 should have a better paper transport
-Ebay has some good deals on 110 ml ink (cheaper than the 80 ml ink), but I don't know if that'll last
-I think I can print with the photo black only (I'll see how Harman FB and the Epson Exh paper look).

A couple things I found:

-B&H was cheaper (printer and shipping), but when I added two boxes Exhibition paper to the order, the shipping increased something like $47. (Both have to be on the same order to get the paper free.) So I ened up ordering through Adorama.
-You have to order through an authorized Epson dealer to get the rebate.
-The printer is being shipped from only 20 miles away (not from NY), so I should have the printer soon.

Jay

[venchka]

Got your forklift handy? :D

Enjoy! Be sure and update us on your progress.

[PenGun]

Got your forklift handy? :D

Enjoy! Be sure and update us on your progress.

It's 90lbs. You need a forklift? Maybe another person if you are small but ... wow.

[venchka]

I know someone in San Antonio who just bought one. I thought he said it was 150 pounds. My bad if I'm wrong.

[Jay W]

...almost forgot. Ordering through bing.com (the old live.com) gets another 6% rebate or $106 on the 4880 and $11 on the Exhibition paper. The Exhibition paper offer ends 8/31.

Sorry to keep posting on this.

Jay

[venchka]

The 4880 ships with photo black ink only. Matte black cartridge is extra.

[Rider]

The ink is not being used up. It is mostly just filling up the tubing between the cartridge and the print head and charging the print head. So the ink will end up being used for your prints. The true implication is really at the back end of the life of the printer. Whenever you sell or destroy the printer, there will be ink in the tubing that will not have been used. But for anyone who does much printing, this amount of ink depreciated over the total number of prints made during the life of the printer is not meaningful.

I respectfully disagree. This ink is being used in a way that forces me to buy ink faster than I would otherwise, hence money out of my pocket at the front-end and not at the back-end. Hence I would not subtract $400 from the price of the printer for the ink I'm supposedly getting for free.

[Rider]

Just a follow up. Thanks for your info, I ended up going with the 4880. There were a number of reasons:

-The difference in price between the 3800 and 4880 was $345
-I have various formats (35, 6x6, 4x5, plus a few pano's) so roll paper can be a benefit
-The 4880 should have a better paper transport
-Ebay has some good deals on 110 ml ink (cheaper than the 80 ml ink), but I don't know if that'll last
-I think I can print with the photo black only (I'll see how Harman FB and the Epson Exh paper look).

A couple things I found:

-B&H was cheaper (printer and shipping), but when I added two boxes Exhibition paper to the order, the shipping increased something like $47. (Both have to be on the same order to get the paper free.) So I ened up ordering through Adorama.
-You have to order through an authorized Epson dealer to get the rebate.
-The printer is being shipped from only 20 miles away (not from NY), so I should have the printer soon.

Jay

Enjoy it. Will you be getting the special cart that Epson sells?

[Jay W]

Enjoy it. Will you be getting the special cart that Epson sells?

For $350 + shipping, no. I have a four drawer metal cabinet that holds full size sheets of matt board. (It's probably 12-14" high.) That needs to go from the basement to my office and the printer will go on top of that. The cabinet needs a small stand (4" or so) to get it off the floor. I have some birch around for that. Once I get the printer and get a feel for the space it needs and how much it'll shake, I'll probably get some birch, pull out the table saw and make something so the printer is about waist high.

Jay