Review:Epson: Stylus Photo 2200 inkjet printer

[G. Couch]

Thanks for the wonderful review Kevin! It's nice to read a review from someone who has been using the 2200 for a while. The fact that you have had very little problem with clogged print heads is encouraging news.

[KevinBE]

Hi Greg, thanks for the nice words. I am glad you liked the review of the 2200. I think Doug did a great thing when he introduced that review database.

I also liked you review of the book "Mastering Digital Printing". I ordered it this past weekend. I can't wait to read it. There is so much more I want to know about digital printing.

[KevinBE]

Here's an update to the review. Until now I hadn't really put the printer through a heavy print cycle. Yesterday I got an order for a large, or at least for me, number of prints. I printed 44 5x7s and 11 8x10s in one sitting. This meant that I printed 33 8x10s. I did do a cleaning cycle prior to starting, I stacked 40 8 1/2 x 11 sheets in the sheet feeder and hit go. The printer didn't miss a beat. Since the ink in the different cartridges are used at different rates, when I started I had 2 cartridges that were almost empty. I allowed the printer to print until the driver stopped and forced a cartridge change. This happened twice in the middle of a picture, the cartridge change had no ill effect on the picture at all. It picked up right where it left off perfectly.

The average time for an 8 x 10 was 3 min and 50 sec. I was printing at 1440 DPI in high speed mode. After the job was complete I printed one more image at 2880 in low speed mode. It took 4 times longer and I was hard pressed to see a difference between the 1440 and the 2880 images. If I had printed a super high quality image the difference would have been more noticeable. But since most of my printing is of restored images I rarely see super high quality images. Maybe when I get my 11 MP Nikon SLR, ha ha ha, I will start printing at 2880.

[westsidemaurice]

I'm relatively comfortable with my 2200 (first photo printer) and my 3200...

1) The printer readily equals traditionally enlarged B&W photographic prints. As
I become more expert, it will be even better. Ansel Adams would have abandoned the darkroom for it.

2) 2200 does better than could be done with traditionally enlarged "C" prints (I'm personally expert there). The exceptions involve skin tone in portraits. I think my own skills are the limiting factor at this point.

3) I've seen a lot of Ciba prints, made a bunch, made my own chemistry etc. They have never come anywhere near what the 2200 does with simple use of the bundled software, with very little effort.

4) I think paper selection may be more critical than technological sophistication in getting best results from the 2200.

5) I suspect simple use of Photoshops layers, which I've not yet explored, may be exceptionally useful.

6 ) I've just started to look at Epson's online instruction...it seems superb.

BTW, using 3200 / 2200 I've printed a wedding from damaged 35mm negatives. It had first been printed by a custom lab at $400 to just-ok quality (lab cried about the negatives). My reprint job was equal, would be better today with what I learned. This involved about 100 5X7 and 8X10 prints. Replaced the usual pigments a couple of times, no technical glitches at all, except for printing a couple of sheets on their backsides

[BWlover]

inkrepublic.com's system

you guys can try out the bulk ink device for Epson 2200 from

http://www.InkRepublic.com

they have the good solution for Epson 2200 and R800

[DannyRaphael]

BWlover...

Great link (www.InkRepublic.com). Thx for sharing that.

re: Gripes
The only knocks I've read elsewhere on the 2200 come from folks who do not print regularly, usually hobbyists/casual users with low print volume. Apparently they have clogging issues that higher print volume users don't experience.

Those who don't experience these symptoms rave about the print quality.

[westsidemaurice]

_________________________________________________________
Below are VERY useful links for Yahoo printer discussion groups on the three top brands that offer photo-quality in their best models (eg 2200).

All three sites have participants that include highly expert technicians, opinionated nutcases, and the earliest of learners. Everybody's friendly and tries to help. Great Yahoo groups.

The supposedly economical "solutions" posed by bulk ink supplies are behind virtually every mention of 2200 clogging. Unlike the earlier 1280 (also a great 13" printer), 2200 was not designed for "ink," it was designed for "pigment" which is chemically very different and better in terms of both color and permanence.

Mentions of clogging usually involve 1280s and bulk ink...unlike ink the 2200 pigment cartridges seem never to clog from disuse (I follow the Yahoo list pretty closely)...

I sometimes use my own 2200 daily for a week or two, for a dozen or more prints each day, sometimes leave it unused but turned on for as much a a week (careless) and have left it unused and turned off for months...it always prints without a hitch...and I'm in an ultra-dry desert state, where my office Canon and HP deskjet printers (not the photo machines) occasionally clogged due to evaporation.

The 2200 self-cleans when you restart it, which is a reason to turn it off if you're going to let it sit unused. It wastes a little ink in startup/cleaning , which is a possibly-dubious reason to keep it turned on between uses.

Bulk ink devices (http://www.InkRepublic.com is one of a half dozen sources) are reportedly great if you are doing constant high production printing or if you want to explore specialized black/white inksets rather than "pigment." And they seem to be great if you're using a 1280, though do sometimes clog if they're not refilled properly.

People who have done the math on bulk ink devices for 2200 (so called "CIS" type systems) have said merely occasional users may be wasting money on them, vs putting up the little OEM carts. And this: bulk systems require you to use potentially very messy processes that are entirely unnecessary if simply use the OEM pigment carts for which the 2200 was designed...and bulk devices use "inks" not the theoretically more archival and perhaps-better- color "pigment" carts (some of the bulk supply sellers admit this on their websites).

The older 1280 ($299 ! www.inkjetart.com and elsewhere ) is a 13" "ink" machine, not a "pigment" machine like the 2200...it reportedly works as well with bulk supplies as OEM. I may get one and set it up with bulk supply of black&white ONLY inksets (if I can find the space).

Take a look at these links:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP-inkjet

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/

[KevinBE]

Hi guys,

Danny you are exactly right. I have turned into an infrequent user myself. My restoration business is very slow and has taken a back seat to my other ventures. I use the 2200 on the average once or twice a week now. If I go more than 2 weeks between print jobs I usually have to do at least one cleaning cycle before I print a photograph. This is typical of the Epson print head design. I have a C-80 at work, I have a Photo 870 and R300 at home that are used for general printing. They all exibit the same tendancies.

One problem I have noticed is that these photo printers seem to clog when you do a lot of general purpose printing like web page and mostly text. This has puzzled me because you would assume that heavy printing would keep the nozzles clean. This is why I purchased an R300 for printing my general everyday printing and also I use it a lot to print on CD-ROMs. I only print photographs on the 2200.

[westsidemaurice]

Undoubtedly different humidity regions differ as to best-practice for operation of 2200 and other printers.

In Louisiana, for example, one might expect creeping mould to plug things up

On the Epson Yahoo site you'll see that clogging mentions have mostly to do with printers other than 2200 and frequently with bulk "ink" supply systems...and again, the 2200 was not designed to print with "ink," which is made up of bigger particles than is the "pigment" and therefore is more likely to clog.

The 2200 is, IMO, just about the worst possible machine for routine desktop printing: it's slow, it's expensive, the "pigments" are more expensive than the inks on lesser machines, and it's not as flashy/intense color-wise as "ink" machines for signs and intense graphics...2200 was designed specifically for subtle photos.

If all one wants is little prints (8X10) they shoud choose a smaller, newer design and save a few hundred dollars...the 2200 continues to the best bet if you want to make exhibition/saleable prints up to 13X18. Knock wood, I have not had an instant of doubt or grief with mine in two years...

[HMMeister]

Epson 2200 b+w unwanted sepia cast

Hi-

I am a photographer and I have added an Epson 2200 to my peripherals. I have been using an Epson 1280 for years, and I love it. My computer is a Mac G5 running OSX 2.8.1 and I use Adobe PhotoShop 7.0

The 2200 makes beautiful color prints on your Enhanced Matte Paper, but I am unable to match the tones in the sample black and white image supplied with the printer. I am using their Matte Black cartridge on Enhanced Matte Paper. Printing from an 8-bit grey scale file (having no color information at all), using Standard settings I get *very* brown, sepia, images. After downloading and installing the ICC profile from the Epson site, I get very green images. I have spoken with Epson tech support at great length, but they have not been able to help me correct this awful problem even through several guesses at different settings.

Amazingly, Epson Customer Relations ("Mary") told me that there is nothing I can do about the problem. Mary said that Epson is aware that there is a flaw, but that they cannot or will not provide the software fix. She insists that even *her* personal, 2200 won't print like the sample... her's prints green.

I just can't believe that Epson has sold me a machine that will simply not ever print a simple b+w image properly. That would be false advertising, and utterly unlike the many other Epson products I have owned. So I am appealing to you for help.

How do I configure this system to print neutral, untinted, black and white tones, like the sample provided, like the 1280... like nearly every other printer in the world?


Thank you-

Howard Meister

[DannyRaphael]

Hi-

I am a photographer and I have added an Epson 2200 to my peripherals. I have been using an Epson 1280 for years, and I love it. My computer is a Mac G5 running OSX 2.8.1 and I use Adobe PhotoShop 7.0

The 2200 makes beautiful color prints on your Enhanced Matte Paper, but I am unable to match the tones in the sample black and white image supplied with the printer. I am using their Matte Black cartridge on Enhanced Matte Paper. Printing from an 8-bit grey scale file (having no color information at all), using Standard settings I get *very* brown, sepia, images. After downloading and installing the ICC profile from the Epson site, I get very green images. I have spoken with Epson tech support at great length, but they have not been able to help me correct this awful problem even through several guesses at different settings.

Amazingly, Epson Customer Relations ("Mary") told me that there is nothing I can do about the problem. Mary said that Epson is aware that there is a flaw, but that they cannot or will not provide the software fix. She insists that even *her* personal, 2200 won't print like the sample... her's prints green.

I just can't believe that Epson has sold me a machine that will simply not ever print a simple b+w image properly. That would be false advertising, and utterly unlike the many other Epson products I have owned. So I am appealing to you for help.

How do I configure this system to print neutral, untinted, black and white tones, like the sample provided, like the 1280... like nearly every other printer in the world?

Thank you-

Howard Meister

To negate the slightly green cast I get on my HP printer when attempting to print BW, I've found that adding a Color Balance adjustment layer and nudging the Green/Magenta slider towards Magenta just a little has the effect of "subtracting" green.

It isn't elegant and it might take some experimenting to get it right, but for me is better that slightly green.

~Danny~

[westsidemaurice]

FOR B&W:

Two nearly perfect methods, both better than Photoshop workaround techniques (with desaturation, layers etc) according to people who have gotten good with PS techniques :

1) Just select "black ink only" under Preferences. It'll do exactly that, very nicely, though it'll first tell you that you'll be unhappy with the results. But it's a stupid machine and it's wrong. It just uses your two Epson black pigments, like you'd hope.

2) Download QTRgui http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRgui.htm
It's wonderful shareware that gives you B&W tone control from cool to sepia/warm using Epson's standard pigments. It's free until you admit to yourself that you like it, then you will of course pay the developer his $50 because you're a good person.

QTRgui requires you to copy your file into a TIFF and print from that...a lossless step and instantaneous.

These both produce very real B&W. The only real disadvantage to "black only" is that it can sometimes look a little 35mm-grainy in smooth highlights. Most people would never notice or would actually like it. QTRgui gives you tone control and perhaps smoother skintones...or perhaps not.

[HMMeister]

Epson 2200 b+w unwanted sepia cast

Thank you both, Danny Raphael and westsidemaurice.

I'll give your suggestions a try.



Best-

Howard Meister