On Sunday 20 November 2011 10:03:06 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > On 11/20/2011 12:14 AM, David Southwell wrote: > > On Sunday 20 November 2011 01:55:18 [email protected] wrote: > >> Warren Block<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, David Southwell wrote: > >>>> Anyone up to date on how to do high quality printing with > >>>> epson inkjet printers (in my case r2400 and r2880) on amd64 > >>>> systems. print/pips* reports they require 386 and do not > >>>> compile on amd64. > >>> > >>> print/gimp-gutenprint works pretty well from Gimp, although > >>> I have not figured out how to get consistent color and brightness. > >>> It supports both of those printers. > >> > >> I'm sure I'm not alone in doubting that _any_ ink-spitter is likely to > >> produce "high quality printing" or "consistent color and brightness", > >> regardless of the host support used. Those printers are designed to > >> be manufactured as inexpensively as possible so as to be sold at very > >> low prices, the profit being in the recurring ink sales. "Cheap" and > >> "high quality" tend to be incompatible design goals. > > Every printer out there is designed to be used in a business model where > the profits are in recurring consumables sales. > > > Not so with epson 2400 and 2880 when properly profiled these professional > > printers produce salon quality prints and are not in any way comparable > > with inexpensive consumer "inkspitter" models - I think you are right as > > far as more economically priced printers are concerned. I have many > > prints produced on epson 2400, 2880& larger epson printers accepted > > into international salons and received awards. > > I have a cheaper Epson inkjet myself that uses the same ink setup as the > more expensive ones your referring to and produces similar quality > photos. The main difference between it and the more expensive inkjets > is the paper control, in the better printers the paper is much more > securely held and less likely to slip during printing. > > However, despite the fact that inkjets can be manufactured to produce > excellent output, the caveat is that it is all in the ink. You cannot > get high quality output from an inkjet with standard water-soluble > inks, that's why the epson output is so good, because they use > petroleum-based inks. However, the oil based inks WILL clog the > printhead unless the printer is used frequently. The industry > experimented with wax-based inks for a while, those also produce > excellent output, but the printers also will clog unless they are > used every day. I myself buy aftermarket water-soluble ink cartridges > that are a drop-in replacement for the Epson cartridges, and do > not clog, and are much cheaper. Print quality is lower, though.
The alternative to cartridges is to use a high quality inkflow system. I agree the quality of the ink is really significant. If you want to get the best results then use pigment inks. > > These printers are totally unsuitable for the average consumer who just > wants to print a picture once every few months. Furthermore the > cost-per-page is far higher than the current crop of inexpensive > color laserjet printers, that is due to Epson using very small ink > cartridges. Epson does that because larger cartridges have more mass > and more mass has more inertia and is harder to control. Again the inkflow systems reduce the mass. I have solve the tendency for nozzle blockages by adding 2% proproponol to my bulk pigment ink supplies. The cost of high quality ink bought in bulk using an ink flow system gives me a reduction of 80% of the cost of Epson Cartridges plus a much longer print head life and a quality that is at least equal to using epson cartridges. > > Getting back to the original question, if your going to drop $500 into > a professional quality inkjet and at least that every year into > consumables for it in order to print pro-quality pictures on a regular > basis, then setup an older extra 32-bit Intel-based PC as a print server > and send Postscript jobs to it over the network, and have it > convert them to whatever language the printer uses. > I agree that would be a solution but a more sensible, and less energy consuming alternative would be a 64bit compliant driver! It is nuts not to have one! <chuckles> david _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
