Epson 2000P vs 2200P Gamut

[Rob Larsen]

Does anyone have first hand experience comparing the gamuts of the Epson 2000P archival ink and the 2200P UltraChrome inks?

I've been struggling with what appears to be a gamut limitation problem on my 2000P. When soft proofing in PS, there is a significant difference between my Adobe RGB workspace and both the default Epson 2000P profile and my custom PrintFIX generated profiles. My color management seems to be right on considering that my prints look exactly like my soft proofs. Problem is that my flesh tones are washing to yellow and my forest greens are shifting to blue-ish. The 2000P prints also look a bit flat. This is constant across multiple profiled paper types.

Soft proofs and output on my service bureaus LightJet are very close to my Adobe RGB working space as is output on my cheap Epson 820. While I realize I could work in a more limited color space, I'd like to stay as large as possible. Therefore I'm considering the 2200 with it's larger gamut (as stated in specs and shown in Roger Cavanagh's forum (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/27_gamuts.htm).

Does anyone have first hand experience comparing these inks? I don't want to sink $650 into a new printer if the practical differences are minimal.

Also, any words of wisdom are appreciated if you think I'm going off into the weeds with this gamut assumption..... :D

[scottbergerphoto]

Does anyone have first hand experience comparing the gamuts of the Epson 2000P archival ink and the 2200P UltraChrome inks?

I've been struggling with what appears to be a gamut limitation problem on my 2000P. When soft proofing in PS, there is a significant difference between my Adobe RGB workspace and both the default Epson 2000P profile and my custom PrintFIX generated profiles. My color management seems to be right on considering that my prints look exactly like my soft proofs. Problem is that my flesh tones are washing to yellow and my forest greens are shifting to blue-ish. The 2000P prints also look a bit flat. This is constant across multiple profiled paper types.

Soft proofs and output on my service bureaus LightJet are very close to my Adobe RGB working space as is output on my cheap Epson 820. While I realize I could work in a more limited color space, I'd like to stay as large as possible. Therefore I'm considering the 2200 with it's larger gamut (as stated in specs and shown in Roger Cavanagh's forum (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/27_gamuts.htm).

Does anyone have first hand experience comparing these inks? I don't want to sink $650 into a new printer if the practical differences are minimal.

Also, any words of wisdom are appreciated if you think I'm going off into the weeds with this gamut assumption..... :D
I'm not sure I even understand more then 1/2 of what you wrote. I'm just learning PS CS. I've been using PSE2 and Adobe RGB with my Epson 2200 for about a year. My monitor is calibrated with a Spyder. All I can tell you is that the flesh tones from the 2200 are beautiful and look like I set them in PSE2.
Scott

[Rob Larsen]

Scott, thanks for your feedback on the 2200. I've had my eye on that printer for a while. Just hoping it performs as well in life as it does in specs -- and hopefully much better than my 2000P. You comments are appreciated.

In regards to "soft proofing," I'm referring to the function available on the "View -- Proof Setup --> Custom" menu. It converts your current screen display to a simulation of the printer color space you are printing to. That is assuming you are selecting a print profile in the PS print dialog. Also note, if you let PS manage your print color space you must disable color management functions in your Epson print driver (Main tab --> Advanced --> No Color Adjustment).

My frustration is I get a beautiful 10D image on my screen and I know that once I print it the colors are going to shift significantly. And soft proofing confirms it even before I print.

Thanks again for the comments.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Rob,

One thing you could try is downloading the new profiles for the 2200 that Epson have just released. I have read quite a number of posts saying that they are a big improvement. You would be able to use these profiles in soft proofing and compare the out of gamut areas and colour shifts with your existing 2000P profiles.

On the subject of Ultrachrome inks, I just got the Epson R800, which uses Ultrachromes as well. The results on glossy and semi-gloss are fantastic, but I can't comment on colour fidelity because the Epson profiles for the R800 are not very good.

Regards,

[scottbergerphoto]

Rob,

One thing you could try is downloading the new profiles for the 2200 that Epson have just released. I have read quite a number of posts saying that they are a big improvement. You would be able to use these profiles in soft proofing and compare the out of gamut areas and colour shifts with your existing 2000P profiles.

Regards,
Roger,
Do you have a link to the new Epson 2200 profiles? I can't find them on the Epson site.
Thanks,
Scott

[Rob Larsen]

Rob,

One thing you could try is downloading the new profiles for the 2200 that Epson have just released. I have read quite a number of posts saying that they are a big improvement. You would be able to use these profiles in soft proofing and compare the out of gamut areas and colour shifts with your existing 2000P profiles.

On the subject of Ultrachrome inks, I just got the Epson R800, which uses Ultrachromes as well. The results on glossy and semi-gloss are fantastic, but I can't comment on colour fidelity because the Epson profiles for the R800 are not very good.

Regards,

Roger, great idea! I'm feeling a little stupid for not thinking of that myself. :oops: That should tell me everything I'm looking for. Once again this forum comes through! :D

As for the R800, the specs on that have peeked my interest. Was curious how the 1.5 pico liter droplet size affects image quality. It's good to hear your comments. I was just looking for reviews on that printer last night on your web site among others. Although I need wide carriage printing, the R800 would be a great replacement for my cheap 820 (which I do not recommend to anyone). Does it have a paper shear on it?

BTW, you have a great website! It is my primary source for practical tips and information. Keep up the good work!

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Roger, great idea! I'm feeling a little stupid for not thinking of that myself. :oops: That should tell me everything I'm looking for. Once again this forum comes through! :D

Cough, cough (polishes fingernails)! :D

As for the R800, the specs on that have peeked my interest. Was curious how the 1.5 pico liter droplet size affects image quality. It's good to hear your comments. I was just looking for reviews on that printer last night on your web site among others.

I'll probably write something eventually, but I decided to join the Image Revue forum and get my free print profile done (by Andrew Rodney, no less :) ) for semi-gloss on the R800. So I'll wait for that to appear, I think.

I had lunch with a pro photographer friend on Tuesday. I took some R800 sample prints to show him. They were 10D images printed at 300 or 360 DPI. His comment was that they were "indistinguishable" from glossies made from film. One duotone I'd made, he said, was "almost like at medium format print".

Although I need wide carriage printing, the R800 would be a great replacement for my cheap 820 (which I do not recommend to anyone). Does it have a paper shear on it?

No, it does take roll paper, but as far as I could tell from the reference manual, it has a mechanism whereby the rollpaper ejects forwards so you can cut it by hand, and then rewinds so as not to waste paper. The manual is the least satisfactory thing about the printer apart from the daft decision to stick a huge sticky label over the print cover, which did not peel off cleanly - took me ages to remove the left out stick.

BTW, you have a great website! It is my primary source for practical tips and information. Keep up the good work!

Thank you,