Thanks for the good information in the review. I was disappointed, however, that there was so little space devoted to actually evaluating the image quality. I would like more detailed description about how the color gamut of the pigment inks from the 2000P compares to output from the 1200 or 1270. Are there specific colors that the 2000P cannot match? Also, Epson's comparison chart for these printers states that the 2000P may produce slightly less detail/sharpness. The review didn't really address this issue, so I assume there was not an apparent problem, but comparing prints from the same image file printed on the 1270 and 2000P would have been very helpful to me.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post - I do think we agree about quite a few of the issues related to inkjet printer technology for the desktop.
My final point may have been vague or badly stated - I wanted to say the Epson (and the other printer companies) are less interested in printer sales than the sale of ink and paper. With that in mind, I am sure that Epson is motivated to minimize their losses to third parties and to produce a better product. I assume the newest inks from Epson could have been produce years ago if they had the desire. I have seen Epson's own documents that indicate the cost of ownership (paper and ink) over the life of the printer is several times greater than the cost of the printer. For all parties, the real profits in this business are in the sale of ink and paper - not printers.
Yes, it's a new word for me as well. I only uncovered it today after spending numerous hours trying to find information on the net which would explain the colour shifts displayed in prints coming off the 2000P. See: http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html
You are perhaps familiar with colour temperature of light and the affects variations of it can have on our visual system. Daylight is blueish while normal household lights (tungsten) are yellow.
Viewing any print under changing light conditions will always result in an apparent change of colours. However, something about the Epson 2000P inkset creates an extreme result. Your print may appear perfectly balanced under tungsten light, but under daylight the fleshtones will seem sallow, even green. The colour shift is significantly stronger for the 2000P than for other printers, including the 1270 and the Lightjet. See the above website for more details.
I am really surprised that none of the reviewers for periodicals, web mags and other trade journals seem to have picked up on this.
Cheers,
Patrick.
Submitted by Hex Angel on Mon, 10/23/2000 - 21:17.
Wendel, thanks for the note. I wanted to reply to some of your comments about the review:
I wasn't trying to disparage (or review) third-party ink suppliers - I think they're doing leading edge stuff that companies like Epson probably won't do. I tried to make it clear that Epson wasn't necessarily due credit for the archival ink market, but they are the first consumer-level (i.e. non large format) inkjet printer manufacturer to ship the whole enchilada - I think that is noteworthy.
I have neither used nor seen results from the Generations inkset, so I didn't include them. (I wasn't trying to be all-inclusive - it was essentially a review of the printer.) I do know, from the Epson InkJet List, that they are pretty highly regarded, and I probably should have included them.
You are technically right about the warranty issue - according to Epson, if your printer comes in with a service issue, and it's clear that you were using non-Epson inks, any damage incurred to the ink system or related parts won't be covered. Since that will put you generally in the same place, I think it's a moot point, but I'll change it.
I mentioned the ink chip item in an early version of the review - it must have gotten cut during the editing process. I agree that it's an issue, but (a) Epson is under no obligation to provide access to their technology for other parties (we could argue that it is good business sense to do so, but they don't have to) and (b) some enterprising vendor will figure out a way to sidestep this issue.
On the last point, yes, there were issues with marketing in the past, from every inkjet manufacturer out there, but I'm reviewing this printer right now, in the context of today's market. I tried to evaluate it as fairly as I could. You're absolutely right about the fact that it's the ink and the paper that makes the print archival; unfortunately, none of the third parties are going to sell anywhere near as much ink as Epson will sell printers. Again - this is a mainstream market play, and that market wants everything wrapped up in a nice package. Epson's done that very nicely here.
The third-party archival ink market is a strong one, but it's been a niche market. I think that, thanks to printers like this one - and ones to come from competing vendors - the whole archival market will grow considerably. Those third parties with a compelling story to tell in terms of their ink/media combinations will continue to flourish and grow. The large-format market, which is better dedicated to higher production volumes, wider range of papers, etc., is an obvious place where third-party solutions will grow (even with Epson's entry into this market).
I m not pleased that Epson, in effect, sand bagged some customers such as me. I've used their printers from the first Stylus,
1520's, and the 3000. Less than four months after forking out $495 for the 1270 they release the real breaktrough, the 2000p.
I say it's dirty pool. I run a one man shop and although I'll wind up getting either the 2000p or
the 7500, or both, it leaves me with a dollar loss if I peddle the practically new 1270.
One thing about the 3000 and 3rd party inks. They run for a long time between ink replenishment. They also will gobble canvas.
Bill Young
Submitted by viejodmar on Wed, 07/26/2000 - 11:27.
There are several errors in this article regarding the use of third party inks.
1. None of the providers listed sell a fully pigment based ink.
2. The one full pigment ink provider (for Epson desktop printers) is not listed - Generation Ink by Mediastreet.com.
3. Because Epson only provides ink in small quantities (in the carts) many of the third party solutions are vastly less expensive than the Epson product.
4. Using a third party ink does not void the warrantee unless the damage is caused by the ink (my experience is that the professional products are well formulated and do not damage the printers.)
5. An additional limitation is that the 2000P (and other new Epson printers) are designed to block the use of third party ink solutions. From a business point of view I don't blame them for this effort, however the recommendation of Quadtone solutions mentioned in the article are directly threatend by the design changes in the printers.
Epson should be praised for improving their product but the article fails to place these improvements within the context of Epson's marketing that has been somewhat mis-leading in the past. The very fugitive nature of the early inkjet prints was downplayed (by the companies) even though the printers were being sold as digital "photo" solutions for amatures and professionals. I have never understood why Epson (and other manufactures) thought that home users wanted digital prints that might fade in a few months or a year. I am pleased to see this printer - remembering of course, that the color inkjet market is about ink and paper, not printers.
What about detail/sharpness?
Thanks for the good information in the review. I was disappointed, however, that there was so little space devoted to actually evaluating the image quality. I would like more detailed description about how the color gamut of the pigment inks from the 2000P compares to output from the 1200 or 1270. Are there specific colors that the 2000P cannot match? Also, Epson's comparison chart for these printers states that the 2000P may produce slightly less detail/sharpness. The review didn't really address this issue, so I assume there was not an apparent problem, but comparing prints from the same image file printed on the 1270 and 2000P would have been very helpful to me.
Re: Misleading Info
Rick;
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post - I do think we agree about quite a few of the issues related to inkjet printer technology for the desktop.
My final point may have been vague or badly stated - I wanted to say the Epson (and the other printer companies) are less interested in printer sales than the sale of ink and paper. With that in mind, I am sure that Epson is motivated to minimize their losses to third parties and to produce a better product. I assume the newest inks from Epson could have been produce years ago if they had the desire. I have seen Epson's own documents that indicate the cost of ownership (paper and ink) over the life of the printer is several times greater than the cost of the printer. For all parties, the real profits in this business are in the sale of ink and paper - not printers.
Metamerism...
Yes, it's a new word for me as well. I only uncovered it today after spending numerous hours trying to find information on the net which would explain the colour shifts displayed in prints coming off the 2000P. See: http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html
You are perhaps familiar with colour temperature of light and the affects variations of it can have on our visual system. Daylight is blueish while normal household lights (tungsten) are yellow.
Viewing any print under changing light conditions will always result in an apparent change of colours. However, something about the Epson 2000P inkset creates an extreme result. Your print may appear perfectly balanced under tungsten light, but under daylight the fleshtones will seem sallow, even green. The colour shift is significantly stronger for the 2000P than for other printers, including the 1270 and the Lightjet. See the above website for more details.
I am really surprised that none of the reviewers for periodicals, web mags and other trade journals seem to have picked up on this.
Cheers,
Patrick.
Orange shift in Epson Archival printers
You might want to read http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20001030S0002 before you buy the archival printing promise.
RE>misleading info
Wendel, thanks for the note. I wanted to reply to some of your comments about the review:
I wasn't trying to disparage (or review) third-party ink suppliers - I think they're doing leading edge stuff that companies like Epson probably won't do. I tried to make it clear that Epson wasn't necessarily due credit for the archival ink market, but they are the first consumer-level (i.e. non large format) inkjet printer manufacturer to ship the whole enchilada - I think that is noteworthy.
I have neither used nor seen results from the Generations inkset, so I didn't include them. (I wasn't trying to be all-inclusive - it was essentially a review of the printer.) I do know, from the Epson InkJet List, that they are pretty highly regarded, and I probably should have included them.
You are technically right about the warranty issue - according to Epson, if your printer comes in with a service issue, and it's clear that you were using non-Epson inks, any damage incurred to the ink system or related parts won't be covered. Since that will put you generally in the same place, I think it's a moot point, but I'll change it.
I mentioned the ink chip item in an early version of the review - it must have gotten cut during the editing process. I agree that it's an issue, but (a) Epson is under no obligation to provide access to their technology for other parties (we could argue that it is good business sense to do so, but they don't have to) and (b) some enterprising vendor will figure out a way to sidestep this issue.
On the last point, yes, there were issues with marketing in the past, from every inkjet manufacturer out there, but I'm reviewing this printer right now, in the context of today's market. I tried to evaluate it as fairly as I could. You're absolutely right about the fact that it's the ink and the paper that makes the print archival; unfortunately, none of the third parties are going to sell anywhere near as much ink as Epson will sell printers. Again - this is a mainstream market play, and that market wants everything wrapped up in a nice package. Epson's done that very nicely here.
The third-party archival ink market is a strong one, but it's been a niche market. I think that, thanks to printers like this one - and ones to come from competing vendors - the whole archival market will grow considerably. Those third parties with a compelling story to tell in terms of their ink/media combinations will continue to flourish and grow. The large-format market, which is better dedicated to higher production volumes, wider range of papers, etc., is an obvious place where third-party solutions will grow (even with Epson's entry into this market).
Thanks,
Rick
I like the review.
I m not pleased that Epson, in effect, sand bagged some customers such as me. I've used their printers from the first Stylus,
1520's, and the 3000. Less than four months after forking out $495 for the 1270 they release the real breaktrough, the 2000p.
I say it's dirty pool. I run a one man shop and although I'll wind up getting either the 2000p or
the 7500, or both, it leaves me with a dollar loss if I peddle the practically new 1270.
One thing about the 3000 and 3rd party inks. They run for a long time between ink replenishment. They also will gobble canvas.
Bill Young
Misleading Info about third party Ink providers
There are several errors in this article regarding the use of third party inks.
1. None of the providers listed sell a fully pigment based ink.
2. The one full pigment ink provider (for Epson desktop printers) is not listed - Generation Ink by Mediastreet.com.
3. Because Epson only provides ink in small quantities (in the carts) many of the third party solutions are vastly less expensive than the Epson product.
4. Using a third party ink does not void the warrantee unless the damage is caused by the ink (my experience is that the professional products are well formulated and do not damage the printers.)
5. An additional limitation is that the 2000P (and other new Epson printers) are designed to block the use of third party ink solutions. From a business point of view I don't blame them for this effort, however the recommendation of Quadtone solutions mentioned in the article are directly threatend by the design changes in the printers.
Epson should be praised for improving their product but the article fails to place these improvements within the context of Epson's marketing that has been somewhat mis-leading in the past. The very fugitive nature of the early inkjet prints was downplayed (by the companies) even though the printers were being sold as digital "photo" solutions for amatures and professionals. I have never understood why Epson (and other manufactures) thought that home users wanted digital prints that might fade in a few months or a year. I am pleased to see this printer - remembering of course, that the color inkjet market is about ink and paper, not printers.