Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

[DPNow]

The Epson Stylus Photo 1400 features fast connectivity, six individual ink cartridges with Epson Claria Photographic Ink and advanced Epson imaging technologies. It prints high-quality, glossy photos up to A3+.

More...

[Ian]

Re: At long last, the replacement to the venerable old A3 Epson 1270/1280/1290 series

The Epson Stylus Photo 1400 features fast connectivity, six individual ink cartridges with Epson Claria Photographic Ink and advanced Epson imaging technologies. It prints high-quality, glossy photos up to A3+.

More...

[Josh Bear]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

I have a R1800 and the price saving on a r1400 looks very attractive for those wantng to move into larger prints. I would like to see a comparison of prints though.

Best regards

josh

[Ian]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

I have a R1800 and the price saving on a r1400 looks very attractive for those wantng to move into larger prints. I would like to see a comparison of prints though.

Best regards

josh

The main attraction of dye-based inks would be no bronzing, no metamerism and a better gloss finish on microporous papers. Traditionally, dye-based printers have a wider gamut. But the R1800 is very wide for pigment ink printer.

The sample pictures I have seen from ther R1400 are very good indeed.

Ian

[Josh Bear]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

I notice it only has one black rather than matte and photo like the r1800, won't this effect photo printing?

As regards bronzing, I don't really notice at all with any of my prints. I guess it may be one of those things where you need to compare prints with an alternative printer to see.

Best Regards

Josh

[Ian]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

Epson is basically saying that they aren't aiming the R1400 at pros that require matte surface printing. This is a consumer printer.

Ian

[Ian]

[Josh Bear]

[JSR]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

[Ian]

[JSR]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

If you need to print on matt papers, the R1800 is unquestionably the better choice, but if you only want to print on microporous glossy or semi-gloss type papers, e.g. Epson Premium Glossy, ignoring running costs (which I think it's too early to make a judgement on) the R1400 looks the better bet.

It's interesting that your view differs with most other people's. The general consensus is that the R1800 is not the printer for matt papers, for that there's the R2400, but that it is the printer for glossy papers.

You're saying that a printer with an ink set purposefully designed for gloss prints (hence the name "Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss") shouldn't be used for gloss prints?

I, personally, don't think the gloss optimiser on the R1800 is particularly good. Although it does give a consistent shiny finish, it doesn't cure pigment ink bronzing and it has an odd, plastic top layer, appearance, a bit like dye-sub prints. Just my personal opinion of course.

[Ian]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

If the R1400 is in short supply, early adopters may well have to accept a premium price, but that's their choice. If supplies are plentiful, the price will surely be discounted, just as the R1800 one has, so the comparison above is not really that useful.

Sure you wouldn't buy it, but there are lots of people not like you who will.

In a sense RRPs, as they used to be a long time, are now illegal. Companies now issue guide prices. But a supplier is legally free to charge any price. Guide prices are used in just the same way in the US as they are here and the prices are discounted too, of course.

It's interesting that your view differs with most other people's. The general consensus is that the R1800 is not the printer for matt papers, for that there's the R2400, but that it is the printer for glossy papers.

You're saying that a printer with an ink set purposefully designed for gloss prints (hence the name "Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss") shouldn't be used for gloss prints?

So you don't like any of Epson's pigment printers then? Any "plastic top layer" is the same whether using the R1800 or the R2400 given that the gloss optimiser is only used in areas of little-to-no-ink on the R1800.

I think you are having some fun with my words I was only comparing the R1400 with the R1800. My personal opinion is that the R2400 is better for matt papers, but the R1800 is undoubtedly better than an R1400 for matt papers.

Why do you assume I don't like Epson pigment printers? I think both the R1800 and R2400 are splendid printers. I'm just not that impressed by the R1800's gloss optimiser. It doesn't mean the R1800 is a bad printer, just that I'd probbaly not use the gloss optimiser very much.

On papers like, for example, Epson Premium Glossy, Canon Photo Paper Pro or Plus, Jessops 160gsm glossy (or the similar Olmec glossy), the new Kodak Ultra Premium instant dry, Ilford Printasia, Fujifilm MultiJet glossy - or any other decent quality glossy microporous paper, when printed properly using dye-based inks you get a much cleaner and more attractive finish than with the R1800, with or without the gloss optimiser. By the way, the R2400 is no better. In my opiinion, HP's implementation of gloss-optimised pigment ink printing is better than the R1800's, though they don't offer it on the consumer B9180 printer.

Personally, I think it's odd that Epson pushed pigment for many years to the detriment of it's dye-based printers and now suddenly they're saying dye-based printers are better. It's like HP pushing dye-based Vivera for many years and are now suddenly saying that pigment-based Vivera is better.

These manufacturers just can't make their minds up - well, except when it comes to releasing new models for no readily apparent reason except to make more money out of the punter.

Your statement is actually completely wrong. Both HP and Epson understand that the market is not 100% for dyes or 100% for pigments. I also disagree that Epson (or HP for that matter) has developed pigment inks to any detriment to their dye-based inks. In fact dyes from some manufacturers, including Epson, have come along in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. They are now water resistant and their fade resistance has been improved dramatically.

Nonsense, the 1290 is a very old design - fundamentally 6 years, in fact. Epson has a much better and faster print head in the new R1400, the ergonomics of the R1400 are much better, it has separate ink tanks, which is what people want and the Claria inks are much improved. That's all on paper of course. Maybe the R1400 will turn out to be a lemon - who knows? But when was the last time Epson produced a lemon?

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

If the R1400 is in short supply, early adopters may well have to accept a premium price, but that's their choice. If supplies are plentiful, the price will surely be discounted, just as the R1800 one has, so the comparison above is not really that useful.

But like the 3800, the high price charged to UK customers will ensure that it won't be in short supply outside the US. US customers get the "discounted price" from day one. We don't. If that's meant to be fair, I give up.

Sure you wouldn't buy it, but there are lots of people not like you who will.

Well, I have two Epson 1290S printers here - so I may surprise you!

Why do you assume I don't like Epson pigment printers? I think both the R1800 and R2400 are splendid printers. I'm just not that impressed by the R1800's gloss optimiser. It doesn't mean the R1800 is a bad printer, just that I'd probbaly not use the gloss optimiser very much.

I was just going by what you said, that you don't like the gloss finish. The finish from the R2400 is virtually the the same as the finish from the R1800 on gloss prints, so if you don't like one you wouldn't like them all. Or have I misunderstood entirely and it's just that you're picking on the R1800 like most people do purely on the grounds that "it's not K3 like the pros use"?

On papers like, for example, Epson Premium Glossy, Canon Photo Paper Pro or Plus, Jessops 160gsm glossy (or the similar Olmec glossy), the new Kodak Ultra Premium instant dry, Ilford Printasia, Fujifilm MultiJet glossy - or any other decent quality glossy microporous paper, when printed properly using dye-based inks you get a much cleaner and more attractive finish than with the R1800, with or without the gloss optimiser. By the way, the R2400 is no better.

Perhaps, but that's in the perception of the user, it's not a fact. I have glossy prints from the R1800 and the 1290S on Epson Premium paper, and I don't dislike either. I wouldn't favour one over the other. The dye ink inherits the texture of the paper, the gloss optimiser produces a smooth almost mirror-like surface. Both are appealing, IMHO. The advantage I find with the R1800 is that you get the same gloss finish almost regardless of which glossy paper you use, whereas a dye-based ink's gloss is dependent on the paper - so you'll rarely get the same gloss finish on two different gloss papers.

In my opiinion, HP's implementation of gloss-optimised pigment ink printing is better than the R1800's, though they don't offer it on the consumer B9180 printer.

I keep hearing about that, and I'm intrigued. It does seem a little silly that HP think it's so great yet they won't put it on their affordable printers. Kind of like saying that the target market for the B9180 are the less descerning amateurs who don't want to print gloss.

Your statement is actually completely wrong. Both HP and Epson understand that the market is not 100% for dyes or 100% for pigments. I also disagree that Epson (or HP for that matter) has developed pigment inks to any detriment to their dye-based inks. In fact dyes from some manufacturers, including Epson, have come along in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years.

I just go by what I see. For some years now, Epson's printers have been pigment - Ultrachrome for pros, Durabrite for consumers. They had practically abandoned dye printers altogether. They convinced everyone that the longevity and durability of pigments was king, and they added extra inks to combat colour gamut problems and introduced gloss optimisers to overcome gloss differential.

Now, they're suddenly abandoning consumer-grade pigments (Durabrite) because they have a new dye ink to sell. Clearly they're now saying "dye isn't so bad after all".

Look at HP. While Epson were banging on about pigments producing fade resistant prints, HP introduced Vivera-dye which (on one paper type) could exhibit fade resistance that'd challenge any pigment.

Then, suddenly, HP have a pigment printer. "Vivera-dye" gets side-stepped, along comes "Vivera-pigment". Clearly they're now saying "pigment isn't so bad after all".

Is it my fault that these manufacturers change with the wind?

They are now water resistant and their fade resistance has been improved dramatically.

We had water resistant dye inks before Claria came along. The 1290 will do it for you on Epson premium glossy photo paper. And before Epson abandoned ColorLife, you could have a half-decent fade resistant dye print. Claria has invented nothing new, it's just widened the goalposts.

Nonsense, the 1290 is a very old design - fundamentally 6 years, in fact.

Yes, and the reason it's so old is because nothing has come along to better it. If it was really that bad, it wouldn't have lasted 6 months - never mind still being a popular printer 6 years later. The 1290 has a surprising legacy that very few other printers can claim. The 1400 just doesn't seem to be anything all that radical to replace it.

Epson has a much better and faster print head in the new R1400, the ergonomics of the R1400 are much better, it has separate ink tanks, which is what people want and the Claria inks are much improved. That's all on paper of course. Maybe the R1400 will turn out to be a lemon - who knows? But when was the last time Epson produced a lemon?

People want separate ink tanks because this is what they've been brainwashed into thinking this way. Actually people want cheaper running costs. Separate ink tanks, particularly in an Epson, is not the way to achieve it. Change one "separate ink tank" and all of them get purged, wasting a bucketload of ink and ensuring the waste pad fills up quicker.

Ask if the customer wants separate inks "because when the cyan runs out you only have to replace the cyan" and they'll say "yes"; ask if the customer wants separate inks "and when you replace one, all the others will waste a couple of ml through charging" and they'll say "no".

Epson want separate inks, the customer just thinks they want separate inks. The CMYKRB single-ink cartridge Picturemate produces cheaper prints than my CMYKRB separate-ink cartridge R1800.

[Ian]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

According to my colleagues in the trade, there is a very healthy demand for 3800s. That's not to say I endorse the US/Europe price difference, but it does point to your cynicism over Epson's marketing being foolhardy as incorrect.

You are accusing HP, Epson and probably others of changing their ink technologies at a whim, abandoning dye in favour of pigment and vice versa. This notion is perfectly ridiculous and I think you know it. The truth is that there is no perfect solution for all sectors of the market. Epson has been the best positioned to serve all the different demands, though through different platforms. Canon is stuck at dye-based only, while HP has decided that Epson's strategy of dyes and pigments is one to be copied. Lexmark has, rather cunningly, mixed pigemnts and dyes!

Of course Epson hasn't (ever) abandoned dye-based printers. There have been just as many dye-based printer models as pigment ink ones. Epson is simply satisfying the market demand for the different technologies. It's called customer 'choice'.

Epson ColorLife is a swellable polymer surface paper and so you can't get a very good glossy finish and though the ink is protected from fading, the surface isn't resistant to physical damage.

Epson has a policy of continuing to manufacture models that have sustained demand. The 1200-series is far from unique. However, Epson does review most if its printer models each year, mainly at the sharp end of the consumer sector, just like any other printer manufacturer. For example, all of the 2005/2006 PictureMate models are now obsolete.

Canon pioneered single colour ink tanks in consumer printers. Epson simply responded to Canon's lead. If Epson 'wants' us all to use single ink tanks, why is the Picturemate, in your example, not a multi-tank printer? And why has HP moved to introduced single colour ink tanks?

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Epson launches new A3+ six-colour photo printer - Stylus Photo 1400

Of course Epson hasn't (ever) abandoned dye-based printers. There have been just as many dye-based printer models as pigment ink ones. Epson is simply satisfying the market demand for the different technologies. It's called customer 'choice'.

I just say it as I see it. Maybe you're too close to have noticed. There was a period when you couldn't find an Epson dye printer because they'd gone Durabrite for consumers, Ultrachrome for pros, and the only real dye printer was the 1290 that was weathering the storm. Now that Epson are putting the spin on Claria, Durabrite is being dumped. It seems fairly obvious from where I'm sitting.

I've already explained the HP scenario. Not being able to compete with Epson pigment, they pushed ahead with Vivera-dye saying that you didn't need pigment for long-life because dye would do it just as well. That was until they had their own pigment, at which time the message changed.

You call it cynicism, I call it realism.

Check out this document: http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/te...0611single.pdf. One paragraph says "Claria has raised the bar for what a dye
ink can achieve." and another says "Claria ink is much more resistant to light and ozone thanks to its tightly clustered pigment molecules." They swing between pigment and dye so much that they can't even agree on what Claria is.

Epson has a policy of continuing to manufacture models that have sustained demand. The 1200-series is far from unique. However, Epson does review most if its printer models each year, mainly at the sharp end of the consumer sector, just like any other printer manufacturer.

What other consumer printer, particularly from Epson, has lasted for 6 or 7 years without being replaced? I'm not talking about a "series" of printers, I'm talking about a specific single printer.

Epson, like other manufacturers, have a habit (I'll refrain from using the word "policy") of obsoleting older printers purely to capitalise on new style ink cartridges and so make more money out of the punters. This is the reason for the revolving-door model of A4 printers - what you buy today won't be around tomorrow. The fact that the 1290 wasn't replaced so readily was because it didn't need to be. Likewise, if Epson were truly always supportive of dye inks, they would have remained with the 1290's dye ink in their A4 range until Claria. If it was good enough for the 1290 for 6 years, it would have been good enough for A4 equivalents.

For example, all of the 2005/2006 PictureMate models are now obsolete.

The Picturemate models have clearly been replaced because Epson's original plan of going pigment-only has changed now that they have Claria. The Picturemate is a clear example of being replaced for the sake of being replaced, not necessarily being replaced by something better.

Canon pioneered single colour ink tanks in consumer printers. Epson simply responded to Canon's lead. If Epson 'wants' us all to use single ink tanks, why is the Picturemate, in your example, not a multi-tank printer? And why has HP moved to introduced single colour ink tanks?

The Picturemate is the example of Epson being blindsided. They didn't expect the Picturemate to be such an economical runner. I'll just bet they've corrected that oversight with the new range, though.

Look at the Epson PM100 that came along to rapidly replace the original Picturemate. This was before Claria came along and no one knows anything about its fade resistance or durability of print. The only reason it came along can only be because the previous PMs were cheap to run and the 100 corrected that error. What other reason can there be?

You are accusing HP, Epson and probably others

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying what I'm seeing. If the message is wrong, look in the horse's mouth, don't blame the reader of the book. Benefit of the doubt vanished when greed became policy.