Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson 4000 vs Epson 4800  (Read 12542 times)
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2006, 05:15:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark,
The reply I had I believe was from the Vistek webmaster and I have not quoted all of it, but the content indicates that the data was derived from the web and that the luminous landscape was the only referenced site. If you like, I will forward on the email and you can ask the questions yourself. The difference in 'standard' print size could quite easily have been derived from this:
Quote
Therefore, 1300 standard prints in four months equates to about 75 near full-bleed A3+ prints per month
which is of course what I wrote earlier in this thread.
I agree with everyhting you say on my little quality duel. There seems little point in comparing matte prints and I entirely accept that changing inks on your printer is something that you would not want to undertake. But hey, I just thought it would be a bit of fun and I really think there is very little difference in quality regardless of media. If nothing else, it might make you think about whether you should be printing matte and it might make me think whether I should be printing glossy and it is always interesting to see someone elses work.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2006, 05:16:53 PM by drew » Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
rmlickteig
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2006, 10:42:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the info on the 4800.  I currently own a 2200 and am thinking of moving up to the 4800.  The big question for me though is cost per print.  I am new to all the terminology and things but I believe I understand the info about 54 SQ inches as a standard print.  That being said correct me here if I'm wrong; approx 4 of these standard prints would fit on a 17 x 22 stock?  Doing some quick math ( math is not my thing ) I figured it would cost about $2.50 to $3.00 a print (17 x 22).  I am close?  I got this by figuring 1 standard print (54 sq) takes about 1ML of ink.  Seeing that there is 880 ML of ink that means 4 standard prints divided into the 880 gives you basically 220 (17 x 22) prints?  Divide the 220 prints into $560 big ones for ink and I get $2.50 per print.  Is this correct?  Take the $2.50 per print for ink and $4.00 for a piece of nice paper and you end up with $6.50 for a beautiful large print.  

I hope this is right because it sounds like I could have a nice profit margin.  

Thanks for your time and help!!!
Russ
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7970



WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2006, 12:49:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks for all the info on the 4800.  I currently own a 2200 and am thinking of moving up to the 4800.  The big question for me though is cost per print.  I am new to all the terminology and things but I believe I understand the info about 54 SQ inches as a standard print.  That being said correct me here if I'm wrong; approx 4 of these standard prints would fit on a 17 x 22 stock?  Doing some quick math ( math is not my thing ) I figured it would cost about $2.50 to $3.00 a print (17 x 22).  I am close?  I got this by figuring 1 standard print (54 sq) takes about 1ML of ink.  Seeing that there is 880 ML of ink that means 4 standard prints divided into the 880 gives you basically 220 (17 x 22) prints?  Divide the 220 prints into $560 big ones for ink and I get $2.50 per print.  Is this correct?  Take the $2.50 per print for ink and $4.00 for a piece of nice paper and you end up with $6.50 for a beautiful large print. 

I hope this is right because it sounds like I could have a nice profit margin. 

Thanks for your time and help!!!
Russ
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hate to put a damper on your enthusiasm, but a 17x22" print has an area of 374 square inches. Dividing 54 into 374 gives just below 7 "standard" prints in a big one, so you get only 880/7 or about 125 big prints oot of 880 ml of ink. Then $560/125 gives you about $4.50 just for ink for a big print. Adding paper, it comes to $8.50 rather than $4.50.

Or, if you count on one-inch margins taking no ink on the big print, you have 15x20" which is 300 square inches, or a little over 5.5 "standard" prints in one big print, giving you 880/5.5 = 160 big prints in 880 ml of ink, or $560/160 = $3.50 per big print for ink, or $7.50 including paper.

You might want to figure in amortization on the cost of the printer, plus costs for some unsellable prints before you start advertising 17x22" prints for sale at, say, $6.98 each.  

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 18, 2006, 12:25:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi drew,

Sorry for the delay in replying. Paper choice is largely a matter of taste and sometimes a matter of apparently wider gamut. I like matte because it doesn't glare (reflections), which I find distracting. The worst part of matte is said to be tonal separation of the bottom quartile of the tone curve. A friend who has Imageprint with Phatte black ran a couple of my files suffering from this problem. He used the new Crane Museo Silver Rag he had for testing, and we found that it made a bit of difference to this problem but nothing that really hits you in the face. The paper by the way is lovely, and I understand there is better to come from another manufacturer. So, in a nutshell, as new papers hit the market we need to keep re-evaluating what we like best to use.

One nice thing about Epson Enhanced Matte is the cost - so if you mess-up it is quite painless. These other high-end papers really are pricy by comparison. If you do prefer non-matte finishes, the 4800 really does reduce gloss differential and bronzing (I've personally seen evidence of this with prints from both the 2400 and the 4800), but whether or not it is worthwhile to up-grade for this once you have a 4000 - which is a great machine - only you can be the judge by getting some side-by-side samples done under your supervision by someone near you who has a 4800.

Cheers,

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad