Epson R2400 Printer is it good?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hey everyone,

Just wondering what you may know about the Epson R2400 printer. I've been doing a lot of little jobs around town for people, and constantly have to run around to get the prints. It's annoying, and so I'd like to invest in a high quality photo printer.

This one looks good, but I'd like some second opinions.
The link; http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=383190&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Thanks!:D

[MDJAK]

I own the pro stylus 4000 (not the newer 4800) and I love it.

You can't go wrong with Epson.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Sweet!!! I saw that one on bhphoto. Tabloid size, 17 inch wide photos. NICE! I can live with 13inch though. What I like about the R2400 is that it has 3 different blacks. Soooo I'm guessing that it'd produce better B&W's?

There's the R1800 which is three hundred bucks less, but eeehhhhhhh I want the best quality I can get ya know? The final product is everything.

Oooohhh, and have you seen that new Metalic paper by Kodak? It's so sweet! The pictures literally pop right out at you. I got a free sample kit from Mpix.com mailed to me and I was just blown away by that paper. Here, check it out (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=)

[MDJAK]

Yes, it will produce better B&Ws. However, there's a price to be paid. You have to switch out one of the black inks, and this wastes a considerable amount of ink. Although not as much on the 2400.

Check out this review of the 4800, especially the last paragraph that deals with the 2400.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800-1st.shtml

[MDJAK]

Look here also.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi036/Epson_R2400.html

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Wow, thanks! Great reviews, and that 4800 looks like a beast! The 2400's all I need, and to hear that there's less ink waste is great. That example showed a %25 loss of ink though, ouch! Haha, and that's less? I don't think it'd be all that big of a deal since I don't think I'd be switching between matte and glass all that much... I'd want the highest quality photo's every print and so matte would be my choice. Or are there circumstances where gloss is better? Huh, is one better than the other at all...?

[MDJAK]

That's a good question about gloss and matte paper.

I was always a fan of gloss. Note I said "was."

Most, if not all, fine art photographers print on some type of matte paper, never gloss.

Depends what you want to do with your prints. When I was first starting out, as I said, I used gloss exclusively with my first printer, the Canon S9000, a 13x19 very fast printer. The results were excellent. A lot of the pictures I took now hang in the local H.S. wrestling room under nonreflective glass. However, now that I know better, I'm quite disappointed that they are on gloss.

Matte, when done well, with saturated colors (or high dmax B&W) looks much richer and displays better with no reflections. It is also usually heavier weight paper.

For my 4000, I have a roll of ultra smooth fine art paper. It is incredibly thick and the resultant picture looks like it was painted on. Once it is framed, it is truly a work of art.

Your best bet is to experiment with different paper types until you find what you like best for a particular circumstance.

A former friend of mine (I should really say acquaintance) who was the subject of a post a while back that you may remember, wherein I lamented working a long, hot day and him not paying me that day?) prints all his sports photos on gloss paper and it is very impressive to the customers, even though it may not be the best choice.

I also like semigloss.

Mark