[Leica] R2400 question ? 3800

[mark at whitedogs.co.uk (Mark Pope)]

Hi Matthew,

glad you found the blog useful.
As far as what ink is suitable for Epson printers, I'm afraid I don't 
know the answer.  However, if you give Permajet a call, they should be 
able to help you.
My guess is that the inks should be OK, as I think the 2400 , 3800 and 
4800 all use the Ultrachrome K3 inks.  Permajet would be able to confirm it.

Glad you like the Trees - they are one of my favourite shots of 2008.
Good luck with getting your printer fixed.

All the best


Mark



Mark Pope,
Swindon, Wilts
UK

Homepage               http://www.monomagic.co.uk
Blog                   http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog
Picture a week (2009)  http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2009
                (2008) 
http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2008


Matthew Hunt wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
> 
> I read your printer woes blog with interest.  Does the Epson R3800 take
> Epson or Permajet ink?  I'd prefer to fix it or else get another R2400 or
> one that takes the same Permajet inks as otherwise my ink bottles will go 
> to
> waste.  The bottles say for R2400 / 4800 / 7800 but I don't know about the
> other numbers.
> 
> We used to live in Swindon and we just loved your photo of the trees at
> Coate Water where we have happy memories of walking our previous Golden
> Retriever.
> 
> Best wishes, Matthew 
> =============================================
> Matthew Hunt
> 3 The Spinney, Cottenham, Cambridge, CB24 8RN
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+matthew=hunt.tc@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+matthew=hunt.tc@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Mark Pope
> Sent: 15 January 2009 18:45
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] FILM VS DIGITAL! ??? - R2400 question
> 
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> it lasted about 3 - 3.5 years.
> We were having problems getting a good nozzle pattern (we were using the 
> Permajet CIS) and just after we thought we had fixed it, the thing 
> locked up and a message came up saying that components were past their 
> service life.  Probably due to the number of head cleaning cycles we 
> tried (not knowing at the time that we should have been printing purge 
> pages instead), though I have a suspicion that the print head was on its 
> last legs.
> 
> I wonder whether it would be worth your while trying a set of cleaning 
> cartridges?
> 
> I looked at getting the printer fixed by a local agent, but they refused 
> to touch it because it had been used with a CIS.  So if you go down that 
> route, don't mention non OEM inks.
> They wanted to charge me ?90 to look at the printer, plus a complete set 
> of inks.  Given that I couldn't guarantee that they could fix the faults 
> I was experiencing for the ?90n plus inks, I decided to look at another 
> printer.
> 
> Originally, I didn't intend to go for the Epson, but I had heard some 
> accounts of unreliability with the HP B9300(I think), which I liked the 
> look of.  And then I heard about the Epson rebate.  I got a rebate of 
> ?150 just for owning the 2400.  So it became very worthwhile.
> 
> This might be of interest:
> 
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog/?p=39
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Pope,
> Swindon, Wilts
> UK
> 
> Homepage               http://www.monomagic.co.uk
> Blog                   http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog
> Picture a week (2009)  
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2009
>                 (2008) 
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2008
> 
> 
> Matthew Hunt wrote:
>> Dear Mark,
>>
>> How long did your R2400 last?  Mine is in trouble after 18 months of hard
>> work, I was pleased with it and the Permajet ink & paper I was using with
>> it, but now the Light Magenta keeps fading away after printing about
> thirty
>> 4x6 prints.  Syringing through clears it but not for very long, and
> Permajet
>> think one of the air pumps in it may be giving up.
>>
>> Best wishes, Matthew 
>> =============================================
>> Matthew Hunt
>> 3 The Spinney, Cottenham, Cambridge, CB24 8RN
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lug-bounces+matthew=hunt.tc@leica-users.org
>> [mailto:lug-bounces+matthew=hunt.tc@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Pope
>> Sent: 15 January 2009 08:19
>> To: Leica Users Group
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] FILM VS DIGITAL! ???
>>
>> Interesting observations Ted.  Recently, I have found myself making 5x4 
>> negatives, but rather than print them in the darkroom, I scan them and 
>> print them digitally.  It's a lot less hassle and the results are 
>> certainly as good, if not better than from the darkroom.
>>
>> I do like to be able to retouch/spot negatives electronically.  It's so 
>> much easier than spotting wet prints, which is a technique that I never 
>> mastered.
>>
>> Others have mentioned the Epson 3800. I can only agree with their 
>> sentiments. One of these would knock your socks off.  We bought one late 
>> last year as a 'special' Christmas present.  It's wonderful.
>> When our 2400 'died', I looked at replacing it with another A3 printer. 
>>   Having looked at options from HP, Canon and Epson, I found that the 
>> 3800 was a better option on cost grounds.  Higher initial outlay will be 
>> offset by the ink costs (and a ?150 rebate).  The 3800 has 80ml ink 
>> tanks rather than the paltry amounts in the Epson (16ml IIRC).
>>   I reckon with the volume of prints that we make, that we will break 
>> even in a year.
>>
>> Now we have the 3800, I do seriously wonder whether I will feel the need 
>> to make wet prints again.
>>
>> I haven't looked at RIPs - do they really make much of a difference and 
>> are they worth the cost?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Pope,
>> Swindon, Wilts
>> UK
>>
>> Homepage               http://www.monomagic.co.uk
>> Blog                   http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog
>> Picture a week (2009)
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2009
>>                 (2008) 
>> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2008
>>
>>
>> Ted Grant wrote:
>>> Hi Crew,
>>>
>>> I've just taken a break from scanning roughly 250 35mm TMY negatives
> rated
>>> at ASA 800 from one of my medical books. And making 13 X 19 size prints
>> for
>>> an exhibition.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> A very interesting project even though I've scanned lots of slides and
> B&W
>>> negs in the past this episode is an eye opener to say the least.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> If I were to say ."shooting digital is an idiots way of photography" it
>>> would be ridiculous. It isn't! It's just a different fashion of recording
>>> our images. Is it better? NOPE!!! Certainly not when you look at these
>>> prints from film! Actually never thought I'd say or admit something like
>>> this.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> But they are different, basically it comes down to this, "To each his
>> own!"
>>> There's no point knocking ones brains out comparing and trying to say one
>> is
>>> better than the other. Because quite frankly right now I'd have no
> problem
>>> saying, "digital just doesn't cut it like film!" But that would be
>>> ridiculous, as I have 13 X 19 prints from digital images that would knock
>>> yer socks off.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> But there surely is a difference when you see these prints because they
>> look
>>> better than wet tray prints and I always prided myself at being a pretty
>>> good printer when the situation called for it! I'm using an EPSON 2200
>>> printer with EPSON "Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper" and they have the look
>> and
>>> feel of  well made wet tray prints.. only better! But it's got to be the
>>> film that's making them look so cool! The Scanner is a "Polaroid
>> Sprintscan"
>>> film scanner. At 4000 dpi.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> So for what it's worth if any are interested a kind of new discovery on
> my
>>> part.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> The plan is.. "Never shoot film and digital" on the same assignment and
>>> expect to have identical looking print images! FWIW!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Ol' doc ted :-) 
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information