On May 4, 2008, at 2:34 AM, Moose wrote:
> Bob Whitmire uses a 4800, which has the same max media size.
> Perhaps he
> will weigh in.
>
> Here's info on the 3800/4800 differences.
> <http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_epson_stylus_pro_3800.php>
>
No sooner said that done, Oh Your Mooseness!
I read a post recently (by someone, somewhere) who used the Epson
2400 for color work, and the 3800 for black and white. I had
forgotten that black & white digital types have a real love affair
going with the 3800. (Sorry, Ken, didn't mean to ruffle chemical B&W
feathers. <g>)
With the 2400 v. 4800, I think mostly what you get in addition to the
larger size is durability. The 4800 (4880?) is a pretty rugged
machine. It will churn out prints all day long five or six days a
week with minimal headaches. I've had a few clogging problems lately,
but they seem to have resolved themselves. The printer's been in
service for two years and except for January and part of February,
rarely gets much of a rest.
When I moved up from the 2200 to the 4800, I thought things would be
the same except that the 4800 would print larger. I was wrong.
There's a difference in the prints the 4800 makes over the 2200. It's
subtle, but when I laid out 13x19 prints made on both, I could see
the difference. I'm assuming the bulk of that is due to better
profiles that come with the larger, pro printers, but it could also
be the print heads, droplet size, etc.
But as I said earlier, for me it would depend on how much printing
you're going to do. There just isn't anything to gain by spending a
lot of money on print technology and consumables if you're only
printing a small number of large prints a year. You'd spend far less
finding a good color lab to do it for you.
Just my $0.02, and worth what you paid for it.
--Bob Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|