On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 at 19:56, Adam Maas wrote:
The 4800's superb, but you can do 11x14's on the R2400 for about half
the price.
Yep that'd do the trick, it has the same Epson UltraChrome K3™ Ink
set.
But if I could afford a 4800, I'd get one.
Must resist.
I went back and forth between the R2400 and R4800. The ability to do
16x20 cut sheet is very appealing to me, but I couldn't justify the
additional expense yet as the majority of my printing is within the
bounds of an A3 Super paper size. The R2400 has been working out
extremely well: it has been interesting to me that the comments from
clients I've shown prints to do not start with comments like "what
was this printed with" ... they discuss the photographs, not the
process/printing technology. That's exactly where I like to be with
the process.
BTW:
The magazine Digital Photo Pro's measurement of the R2400 showed it
achieved a higher black density in monochrome printing than any of
the wet lab papers available today that they tested against, which at
least demonstrates that the capability for high quality B&W printing
is there. The current issue on the newsstands also has an interesting
take on B&W rendering technique. I think it's too complicated,
personally, but will be experimenting with it when I return home ...
want to see how it measures up against my home-grown B&W rendering
technique.
Godfrey
