It will(although not ideally, it's intended for pigment printers), but note
it's a true Matte paper, not the semi-matte or pearl that minilabs pass off as
matte paper. Matte papers are not really ideal for colour work unless you want
a watercolour look to the print. You may want to look at Moab?legion's other
products as well, I simply went with the paper I knew.
-Adam
Glen Tortorella wrote:
> Thank you, Adam...
>
> Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want
> to make sure of this.
>
> Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on
> the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is
> probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New
> York camera stores (B&H, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not
> purchase it from these stores.
>
> Glen
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> The 4490 is likely a better choice to start than the 4990, unless
>> you're already shooting Large Format. You'll also want to pick up
>> some 35mm ANR inserts from betterscanning.com, they massively
>> improve 35mm scans from flatbeds. You'll want 2 for the 4490. Note
>> Epson.com has refurbs right now for $99.
>>
>> The printer will come with a set of ink carts. So you won't be
>> buying ink right away. If you intend to do large amounts of
>> printing, a R2400 or up will quickly pay for itself in Ink (the
>> R2400's in costs are about 1/4 the cost of an R280's, due to the
>> cartridges holding a lot more ink than the low-end cartridges. Note
>> that a high-end printer like the Epson 4800 is even cheaper, at
>> about 1/3 of the cost of the R2400. The cost difference between
>> those two is about 250 8x10's).
>>
>> Your best bet if you like 5x7's is to print 2 to a page and cut
>> down. Most papers are available in 8.5x11 and larger only. A few
>> are available in 5x7, Moab papers in particular are available in
>> 5x7 (Entrada bright is a superb matte art paper).
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Glen Tortorella wrote:
>>> I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do
>>> not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my
>>> prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because
>>> this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is also the
>>> only one (at least in Epson's line) that comes in matte with
>>> borders. I would prefer 5x7, and I dislike glossy prints. I mention
>>> Epson because their R280 printer seems like a great value.
>>>
>>> In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner? I believe someone
>>> mentioned something with 4990 in the model number (Epson perhaps?).
>>> Again, the scanner route is still questionable for me. While it has
>>> its advantages--in terms of control of print quality, etc.--it, to
>>> me, seems like it is rather limiting, too. Then there is the *total*
>>> start-up cost that few, with the exception of Rebekah, seem to
>>> acknowledge. Yes, the printer is $99, but then ink for it is about
>>> $70, a scanner is probably $200-$300, and then there is that
>>> calibration software, and what else...? I consider all of this in
>>> light of: 8.5x11 for everything, unless I am willing to start
>>> cutting...Hmm...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Glen
>>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
>>>
>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print
>>>>> processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good B&W
>>>>> print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish
>>>>> tint disappointed me. Perhaps print B&W C-41 is just too
>>>>> strange an
>>>>> animal? I have been thinking of leaving my color print
>>>>> processing to
>>>>> W-M, and trying A&I mailers for my B&W prints. Overall, their
>>>>> prices
>>>>> are rather high (though not more than the "pro" shops), but since
>>>>> they charge only $1.50 a roll more for traditional print B&W
>>>>> ($15.50
>>>>> vs. $17.00), I may opt for that. I have heard that their work is
>>>>> excellent ("Old Grumpy" had endorsed them). I welcome any further
>>>>> thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>> I've had inconsistent results with Wal-Mart's in house processing.
>>>> Thus, everything goes into their send-out bin, even the C-41
>>>> stuff. It
>>>> seems that quality is variable by store and by staff. Fuji is much
>>>> more
>>>> consistent. Basically, if you put your film in one of their 1-hour
>>>> envelopes they're going to process it in the store. As far as I can
>>>> tell, anything that's not in a 1-hour envelope goes to Fuji and
>>>> takes a
>>>> few days, at least. Perhaps Bill can confirm this.
>>>>
>>>> C-41 B&W is tricky and most mini-labs don't do it well. Wal-
>>>> Mart, as
>>>> well as Target, Costco, Rite-Aid, etc., are probably going to
>>>> print it
>>>> on the same paper they print everything else on. You're going to
>>>> have a
>>>> color cast. I used to send film to a mail order outfit called Clark
>>>> Color (I believe they're affiliated with York Photo). They would
>>>> print
>>>> C-41 B&W and traditional B&W on traditional black and white paper.
>>>> They
>>>> have since gone to a production inkjet system that really sucks.
>>>> Your
>>>> best bet is to get a scanner and scan/print the stuff yourself.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Scott Loveless
>>>> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>>>> and follow the directions.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> [email protected]
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
>> and follow the directions.
>
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
