Epson 4800 Questions

[PhotoAmateur]

Hi,

I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is the
Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have read, though
when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I will make
room for it if it is something I should have. I have been regularly using
the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to print 16 x
20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local custom photo lab
recently and talked to some guys there who tried to dissuade me from buying
one. I don't know if they were telling me the truth or feeding me with
stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They said the cost of running one
and maintenance would be high. Is this true? They said I would constantly
have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc and have special software, etc.
Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing versus
the 1280? I have heard that you initially have to spend $100 in ink filling
in the heads or something and then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above
is true, I would still like to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is
supposed to replace it or something else(any suggestions?)

[PhotoAmateur]

I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are the
differences between these and is it going to be a vastly different operating
experience over the 1280?

thanks

[Greg B]

The 4800 is more money, but is the current model- MSRP
$1995.00

Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
or 112.00 each for 220ml

Usually the paper alone for inkjets is about 50 cents each
then add the ink cost.

If you want consistent scan to print functionality
or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.

A good calibration device may run 1,000+

This does not count if you need a rip for lots of prints
or the various extended service policies.

Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.

[PhotoAmateur]

Is this any different than the 1280? As long as I can get the consistency
of the 1280, that's fine with me. I make a ton of prints with my 1280, so
it would definitely be used. So, is calibration absolutely essential for
good prints? I am used to not getting exactly what I see on the screen when
I print, but it is good enough for me and anyone who purchases the prints.
I mean I purchased a lot of Color Vision's products awhile back including
monitor and print calibration(no spectro though) would this suffice? I
could spend an extra thousand for calibration device if really necessary.

thanks

[Mark]

>> I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are the
>> differences between these and is it going to be a vastly different
>> operating
>> experience over the 1280?
>>
>> thanks
>
> The 4800 is more money, but is the current model- MSRP
> $1995.00
>
> Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
> or 112.00 each for 220ml
>
> Usually the paper alone for inkjets is about 50 cents each
> then add the ink cost.
>
> If you want consistent scan to print functionality
> or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.
> That is if you want the best output for the lowest cost.
>
> A good calibration device may run 1,000+

Disagree.
I'm getting perfectly calibrated prints from my 4000, and have therefore
postponed purchase of calibration device.

>
> This does not count if you need a rip for lots of prints
> or the various extended service policies.
>
> Its a pro printer, so you need pro levels of business
> daily, weekly etc to be able to justify it.

No you don't.
Being a "pro printer" only means that it's catoring to special needs of
large volume, high-standard users.
It also means it's built like a tank (which it is).
You can keep the same ink cartridges in the printer for up to a year without
problems, and that means you don't have to be running huge prints all the
time.
There are many many people other than pros who need/want to print wider than
13" (afforded by 2200, etc.).
"Justification" becomes more and more easily obtained when you recognize
that you're basically getting a built-in continuous ink system.

I recommend that anyone interested in wide prints seriously consider the
4000/4800, and that those specifically interested in B&W printing go with
the 4800.
-Mark

[Greg B]

Hi,

I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is the
Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have read, though
when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I will make
room for it if it is something I should have. I have been regularly using
the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to print 16 x
20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local custom photo lab
recently and talked to some guys there who tried to dissuade me from buying
one. I don't know if they were telling me the truth or feeding me with
stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They said the cost of running one
and maintenance would be high. Is this true? They said I would constantly
have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc and have special software, etc.
Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing versus
the 1280? I have heard that you initially have to spend $100 in ink filling
in the heads or something and then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above
is true, I would still like to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is
supposed to replace it or something else(any suggestions?)

Referring to gang proofed images, and no its no different than the
1280, except this printer is a lot better in print life span and other
good stuff.

[Bill H]

>Gregory Blank writes ...
>
>Inks are 69.00 per each of the 8 ink cartridges for 110ml
>or 112.00 each for 220ml

These are the MSRP numbers ... a 20 sec search turns up $59.95 for the
110 ml and $95.95 for the 220 ml carts from inkjetart.com ... probably
$5 less at Digital Art Supply. At these sizes the carts last many
months and hundreds of prints, I've found.

>If you want consistent scan to print functionality
>or digital to print then calibration is a given and required.

I have the 4000 and the Epson profiles for the Epson papers are
extremely accurate, so this is not true. If you want to use 3rd party
papers then their profiles don't seem all that good (I've tried Moab,
Arches and Hahnemuehle) and you will probably need to get a custom
profile built for you or buy the gear to do it yourself, but Epson now
has recently brought out 17x22" sheet papers for the 4000 and 4800 so
you don't really need to do that anymore.

[Mark]

Hi,

I've been thinking of upgrading my printer and one I have my eyes on is the
Epson 4800. I am literally salivating over it from what I have read, though
when I heard about the size of this thing I was shocked, but I will make
room for it if it is something I should have. I have been regularly using
the 1280 for years now and I'm happy with it, but I would like to print 16 x
20 prints with archival inks, etc. I went in to my local custom photo lab
recently and talked to some guys there who tried to dissuade me from buying
one. I don't know if they were telling me the truth or feeding me with
stuff so they wouldn't lose my business. They said the cost of running one
and maintenance would be high. Is this true? They said I would constantly
have to calibrate it and print "tests" etc and have special software, etc.
Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing versus
the 1280? I have heard that you initially have to spend $100 in ink filling
in the heads or something and then it's like 50 cents/11x14. If the above
is true, I would still like to upgrade to the 2200, the new printer that is
supposed to replace it or something else(any suggestions?)

They are absolutely full of crapola. :)

I have the very similar 4000, and it is virtualy maint. free.
-A VERY smart machine, built for professional rigors.

The big advantage for th e 4800 (over the 4000) seems to be that it's built
specifically to handle B&W images without the tendency toward color-casts
(which has been my ONLY quibble with the otherwise FANTASTIC Epson 4000).

You will love the printer...and when you figure in the fact that it comes
with a TON of ink (the equvalent of many many 1280 cartridges, even AFTER
priming the head), it becomes a better and better deal.

I say tell your pro guys to quit lying to you and buy the thing.
-Mark (Very happy Epson 4000 user)

[Bill H]

>Is is going to be a vastly different experience running this thing
> (Epson 4800) versus the 1280?

I have the 4000 and also a 1280 and a 2200 ... the 4000 is as simple to
run as the other two from Photoshop, except there are more paper
options to keep track of and with the thicker papers you have to load
the paper in the correct slot, sort of like Velvet Fine Art with the
2200, which has to be loaded flat from the back. Also there's an
overflow ink tank that has to be changed out eventually (after a year
I'm half full, but one day I know I'll have to swap it out ...) ...
doesn't look too hard though. Also if you use roll paper and the
cutter eventually you'll have to replace the cutter, but again for a
serious hobbyist like us it's a 3 year wait, probably.

>I have heard that you initially have to spend $100 in ink filling
>in the heads or something and then it's like 50 cents/11x14.

Both true, at least for me with the 4000.

>I'm interested in the 4000 and 4800 I'd like to add. What are
>the differences between these

The 4800 with the new K3 inks does a better job on glossy papers and
with black/white, according to the reviews. If you're printing color
on fine art papers then the 4000 is fine but if you want to do both
fine art papers and glossy papers then the 4800 sounds like a better
deal. I wish I had the 4800 myself but I'm sure my wife would pitch a
fit if I got it without selling the 4000 first :)

For the differences, check this article by Joe Holmes, it's about the
9800 but that's using the same inks, just with a wider 44" carriage ...
http://www.josephholmes.com/news.html

>and is it going to be a vastly different operating
>experience over the 1280?

Once you figure out the paper paths I'd say no ... the software
interface via Photoshop is practically identical with the earlier
Epsons I use.

>So, is calibration absolutely essential for good prints?

Not if you use the Epson papers and their profiles ... Epson was
embarrassed with the 9600/7600 when digital guru Bill Atkinson
developed custom profiles for those printers and gave them away (they
were much better than the Epson ones) so they went to school with him
and did a much better job with the 4000 and with these new printers as
well. The 4000 profiles give much better print matching than what I've
used with the 2200, much less the 1280 (which is poorly gray balanced).

Bill