Epson R2400 anyone has one?

[fgianni]

Vincent Oliver on his review of the Epson R2400 concludes:

"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of anything I have seen produced in a darkroom". 😱

It seems quite a bold satement to me, anyone has experience of this printer, is it really so good for B&W?

Here is a link to the review if anyone is interested in it:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson R2400/page-1.htm

 

[sf]

I saw a real nice matte print from this printer at the local camera store (Glazer's Camera is a large camera store" 13x19 on Moab Entrada. Totally gorgeous. I have the R2400, paper, pantone monitor calibrator, and Mack 3 year warranty all in my Adorama cart right now. Going to press the checkout button as soon as I work up the courage. I'd have to say this printer produces the best results I've ever seen from an inkjet or anything. Not as nice as a top quality darkroom print, but much much nicer than anything I am able to pull off the old way.

I talked to the expert at Glazer's Camera and he also believes that the Epson V700 is totally capable of producing scans from 645 frames that will print nicely on the R2400. From what I have seen, the V700/R2400 combo just might be the best combination of image quality, technical versatility, and price out there.

 

[Toby]

I can hear the sound of a can of worms being opened.... Seriously though who is this guy? That's a big claim to make unless you are very skillful in both digital and wet processes. I wouldn't pay much attention unless he has the credentials to back up what he says

 

[sf]

Note that the inkjet grain, whatever you want to call it, is certainly visible. More visible than it is from my Canon IP5000. The R2400 has larger inkdrops. Using matte paper, those drops lose their edges, and the prints look really nice.

I saw a color print from the R2400 and it was stunning. Pretty close to the R1800, but slightly finer gradations, more accurate color (barely noticeable to anyone who doesn't know what they are looking at).

I'm looking forward to having this printer around. I'll be moving into a small SMALL place in Seattle, and having no need to do the darkroom thing, while depressing, is going to be very practical. 13x19 is the most I'll ever need.

The print I saw showed perfect blacks and whites, very beautifully presented tones, very delicate and accurate, smooth as silk gradations. Really, the printer is amazing. On matte paper. I only saw B&W on matte and color on glossy. No idea about other combinations. Truly, I'd have to say that from what I saw, this printer is an evolutionary step forward.

I really am interested to see the Canon answer to this printer. The new 13x19 inch printer they are coming out with is going to be better, I'd bet, judging from the great performance of the IP5000.

 

[ChrisN]

I wonder how the learning curve compares for these - top quality darkroom print vs top quality inkjet print? I suspect that it would take me years to develop darkroom skills to that level, and somewhat less time (maybe as little as a few months, given the amount of information available on the net) to achieve a very high quality print with inkjet. Any thoughts?

 

[fgianni]

I can hear the sound of a can of worms being opened.... Seriously though who is this guy? That's a big claim to make unless you are very skillful in both digital and wet processes. I wouldn't pay much attention unless he has the credentials to back up what he says

If you look at his website he seems to know what he is talking about, and he claims to have wet process experience as well.

 

[fgianni]

I really am interested to see the Canon answer to this printer. The new 13x19 inch printer they are coming out with is going to be better, I'd bet, judging from the great performance of the IP5000.

Now you got me thinking, shall I get the R2400 or wait the autumn for the new PIXMA Pro9500 which has 3 Black inks as well?
A nice feature of Canon printers is print speed, and they are usually cheaper, so it may be worth waiting a couple of months ad see how the new Canon behaves.

 

[netzspannung]

I wonder how the learning curve compares for these - top quality darkroom print vs top quality inkjet print? I suspect that it would take me years to develop darkroom skills to that level, and somewhat less time (maybe as little as a few months, given the amount of information available on the net) to achieve a very high quality print with inkjet. Any thoughts?

You know, Chris, you are absolutely right... I went this way with an epson r200 printer, which I now refill myself with one brand of ink and use with color management profiles. Rather stable results, very cheap and nice quality

However, the part of fun of the analog process is that while you may take years to learn, that doesn't stop you from enjoying it. My favorite print made by myself is crap by all quality standards - it is has stripes from multiple exposures - a test print, made before i realized I was out of paper 😉 dust visible on it and so on
But I like it still. It looks nothing like the scene looked in reality, yet it captures the mood somehow. It is pretty much alive, for me at least
In digital, this would be just crap

The R2400 is by all accounts a great printer, I saw prints from it on a recent exhibition, and they held up nicely to hand-printed Salgado pictures in the same room..

 

[sf]

well, I've been doing both for a long time. 10 years in digital and 5 years in traditional. I always did B&W in the darkroom, and have done color and B&W digitally since it became reasonably possible for consumers to do so.

It is hard to compare the two. It's somewhat of a generational thing, or at least it depends largely on your comfort level with computers. Traditional work is much more delicate.

With inkjets, you have three major steps in the process:

1. Scanning the neg or opening the digital file. Scanning requires considerable comfort with computers and a strong knowledge of the digital/analog relationship. Understanding what you see is important. Highlight blowout, grain, shadow detail, noise, scanning artifacts, etc.

Working with digicam files is only different from scanning in that you have already got the image. Well, not really, but it is close enough.

2. Working with the file. Software has a learning process, working with multiple pieces of software, Understanding histograms, contrast, curving, color correction, file types, compression, filters, linear/bicubic resizing, ppi/dpi/inches on and off screen, etc. This is very knowledge intensive. Requires that you understand how the digital file correlates with the analog equivalent. Color spaces is a big one.

3. Printing the file. Gotta have your LCD/CRT monitor calibrated. Understand how your working colorspace corresponds with the printer's ideal Color gamut, etc. Are your tones or colors going to clip? etc, etc.

In traditional (I know very little about this), you have a shot at higher quality output, but you don't have the luxury of preparing the image before printing it. You have to simpy know what you're doing and how all those factors are going to work together. It is much more dependent on confident, perfect control of the process. No drafting out the image is possible. I think inkjet printing offers greater control, but traditional printing offers greater possible quality.

So, really, you can do more while knowing less (with digital). The learning curve is going to be lower only because you can play around with Photoshop for a week and get things pretty well figured out. Can't do this in the darkroom and end up in the same position.

 

[Toby]

If you look at his website he seems to know what he is talking about, and he claims to have wet process experience as well.

I have experience in both areas but unless you are talking about getting a 10x8 neg and then taking it to the best printer you can find, getting an exhibition print made and then scanning the same image on the best equipment available to produce the best quality file to print on the R2400 and then laying the two side by side and comparing them, it's just a totally meaningless statement with no real evidence to back it up. I've got an R800 that I'm very happy with and would recommend to others, I think produces colour prints as good I can get from most labs, but I have never performed any kind of objective test to support this so my opinion is subjective at best, and so, as far as I can tell, is this guy's.

 

[whitecat]

Can of worms indeed! I have been a photographer many years. I had a full darkroom for many years before I had to move and give it up. I rented darkroom space and vowed never to go digital. (I do not own a digital camera). The schedule did not permit this to work well.I missed it so much, I decided to go to the Epson 2400.......I can show you prints side by side from my darkroom and the printer. You would not be able to tell them apart!

Beware you have to have scanner, profiles, Photoshop, monitor calibration to fine tune it all, but it's well worth it all.

 

[fgianni]

So far the consensus seem to be that it is a match for real darkroom prints.

 

[dcsang]

Expensive though no? (not like you can run out and buy a darkroom for the price but you can get used equipment for about that much can't you?)

Dave

 

[boilerdoc2]

Epson 2400

Epson 2400

Actually i think there is a difference between the DR and inkjet prints. The 2400 wins. The blacks are deeper. The tonality is awesome, and with satin/pearl/luster paper they just look better. I either start with digital capture RD-1s or scan film and then print on the 2400. Amazing quality. Has changed photography for me. There are new papers out that replicate the FB paper (Crane Museo Silver Rag, for one, which I'm waiting on).
If you have a color capture, film or digital, and want a B&W print, make your best adjustments in PS and then use the 'Advanced B&W' driver in the Epson Print Properties screen. That's it. The B&W print is amazing without any further specialized adjustments needed. Try it you'll like it!
Steve

 

[dcsang]

Actually i think there is a difference between the DR and inkjet prints. The 2400 wins. The blacks are deeper. The tonality is awesome, and with satin/pearl/luster paper they just look better. I either start with digital capture RD-1s or scan film and then print on the 2400. Amazing quality. Has changed photography for me. There are new papers out that replicate the FB paper (Crane Museo Silver Rag, for one, which I'm waiting on).
If you have a color capture, film or digital, and want a B&W print, make your best adjustments in PS and then use the 'Advanced B&W' driver in the Epson Print Properties screen. That's it. The B&W print is amazing without any further specialized adjustments needed. Try it you'll like it!
Steve

While I may concur - it's still an expensive "try" - especially if I don't like it 😀

Cheers
Dave

 

[tetrisattack]

"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of anything I have seen produced in a darkroom."

This opinion brought to you by the same sort of photographer who would vote HCB off of flickr for being blurry and grainy.

The epson printers are pretty good. I've used a 7800 (24" and takes ultrachrome k3 inks). Very, very sharp - even flatbed scans from 4x5" render well on this printer.

It's not "streets ahead" of my darkroom prints, whatever that means. It's notably sharper. But it is really tough to beat the lush, chocolately shadows of a selenium-toned chloro-bromide fiber print. At least, with stock inks, maybe with a quadtone kit the inkjet would be better. On the other hand, maybe with a condenser head my wet prints would be sharper.

You may disregard my opinion, however, because I admit I'm somewhat on the fringe. This summer I'll be coating my own van dykes and, if that goes well, I'll be producing my own emulsion and coating glass plates in the fall.

I'm sure the R2400 will produce better prints then anything I might come up with.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I have had the R2400 for about a year and it's fantastic. However, I fully expect Epson and others will continue to improve upon it -- it's the nature of this business especially now.

 

[tomw]

I got an R2400 a couple of weeks ago and I'd have to say it's pretty close, but not quite as good as the DR prints I make. The blacks seem fine on the matte papers I've been using (for longevity mostly).

The thing that I look for most is how it does in the highlights--blacks are not that hard to do. So far highlights seem pretty good. I think silver paper is a bit better with highlights, having better gradation among the very light tones of the print. Lately I've been working on getting a good print of a high key desert scene (see here) and haven't quite got it to match the silver prints I've made of the same negative--at least not to match the subtlety of transition among the lighter values. Might be my lack of expertise in the PS/inkjet realm, though. I'll keep at it.

I think that if you are pretty good at traditional printing, you might not be perfectly happy with the R2400. It's pretty good, though. I especially like the almost complete freedom to tone BW images as you wish. One thing I hate with digital printing is cumbersome dodging/burning using PS--wish it had better/easier tools for that.

 

[fgianni]

So far 2 say DR prints are better (but still quite close), 1 prefers the R2400, and 2 say the R2400 is as good as DR.

Just a couple of years ago there was an abyss between the two, so it looks a giant leap forward for inkjet B&W printing.

I am really tempted now.

 

[whitecat]

Just remember the prints are only as good as the negs! Get a good strong neg......scan it at a high dpi..... adjust (just a little) on the tonality...now...print using the proper paper profile and I think we have a good print. Just make sure your monitor is right!!