Printer

[AmberC]

Does anyone have any first hand experience with the Epson Stylus r2400 printer? Everything I have read says its really good.

Thanks,
Amber

[Medley]

No specific experience with the r2400, but lots of experience with Epson. A few things to consider before buying:

1) Price the ink cartridges. Epson cartridges are notoriously difficult to refill. I recently had a set refilled by a local print shop. I even specified that I wanted the same cartidges back, since I had bought them new and they had never been refilled. (A lot of print shops will simply give you a new set of cartridges, and add yours to a 'pool', thereby rotating cartridges between customers)

The black cartridge leaked inside the printer, creating a huge mess. I caught it before the inkwell dried and ruined the printer, but still.....

2) Epson prints look good when on images sent at 300 ppi resolution, but native resolution tends to be higher, up around 360 ppi or so. This makes smaller prints look really spectacular, but larger prints become problematic due to the higher resolution.

All in all though, Epson printers create quality prints.

-Joe U.

[readingr]

No specific experience with the r2400, but lots of experience with Epson. A few things to consider before buying:


2) Epson prints look good when on images sent at 300 ppi resolution, but native resolution tends to be higher, up around 360 ppi or so. This makes smaller prints look really spectacular, but larger prints become problematic due to the higher resolution.

All in all though, Epson printers create quality prints.

-Joe U.

Can you explain in a bit more detail. Not sure I understand what your saying here.

The larger format pics are problematic with higher ppi?

Roger

[Medley]

Can you explain in a bit more detail. Not sure I understand what your saying here.

The larger format pics are problematic with higher ppi?

Roger

I'll try, lol. I came across the concept of native resolution while invesigating image sharpening, one of the most vague concepts in post-capture editing. I came to several conclusions, but the only one relevant to this discussion is that when optimizing for print, I personally strive for sharpening halos that are about .01 inches wide. This allows the eye to perceive a very sharp image without being able to see obvious halos.

I quickly found out that producing printed images with sharpening halos of a specific width required an understanding of the relationship between the amount of pixels you send to the printer and the printer's average ability to lay down dots of ink, which in reality has very little to do with the maximum print resolution that most printer manufacturers advertise. If the image you send is too large, the printer downsizes it, reducing the width of the halos. If you send an image that's too small, the printer tries to stretch it to fit the print size you specify, enlarging the halos. What I was looking for was the magic resolution, in ppi, where the printer neither reduced nor enlarged the image and, by default, the sharpening halos- the printers's native resolution.

Knowing the native resolution of a printer means that I can reduce (or enlarge) an image before sharpening it and know that the printer won't soften the image by reducing the halos or oversharpen it by increasing them. It took a lot of experimenting, and discussion with others who were looking for the same thing, because you won't find these values printed anywhere that I know of (and believe me, I've looked!)

The general concensus we've reached is that the native resolution of Canon and HP printers is very close to 300 ppi, while the native resolution of Epson printers is somewhere around 360 ppi.

Now, consider the implications. My Canon Rebel XT captures images at 3456x2304 pixels. At 300 ppi, I can create a print as large as 11.52 inches by 7.68 inches. But at 360 ppi, the largest print size is 9.6 inches by 6.7 inches. Printing anything larger requires either reducing the image's resolution (taking into account that the printer is going to widen the halos), or find a way to upsample the image.

So, for people like me who want a specific amount of sharpening applied to an image, these considerations come sooner on an Epson printer than they do with a Canon or HP printer.

There- clear as mud, right?:frown2:

-Joe U.

[readingr]

I'll try, lol. I came across the concept of native resolution while invesigating image sharpening, one of the most vague concepts in post-capture editing. I came to several conclusions, but the only one relevant to this discussion is that when optimizing for print, I personally strive for sharpening halos that are about .01 inches wide. This allows the eye to perceive a very sharp image without being able to see obvious halos.

I quickly found out that producing printed images with sharpening halos of a specific width required an understanding of the relationship between the amount of pixels you send to the printer and the printer's average ability to lay down dots of ink, which in reality has very little to do with the maximum print resolution that most printer manufacturers advertise. If the image you send is too large, the printer downsizes it, reducing the width of the halos. If you send an image that's too small, the printer tries to stretch it to fit the print size you specify, enlarging the halos. What I was looking for was the magic resolution, in ppi, where the printer neither reduced nor enlarged the image and, by default, the sharpening halos- the printers's native resolution.

Knowing the native resolution of a printer means that I can reduce (or enlarge) an image before sharpening it and know that the printer won't soften the image by reducing the halos or oversharpen it by increasing them. It took a lot of experimenting, and discussion with others who were looking for the same thing, because you won't find these values printed anywhere that I know of (and believe me, I've looked!)

The general concensus we've reached is that the native resolution of Canon and HP printers is very close to 300 ppi, while the native resolution of Epson printers is somewhere around 360 ppi.

Now, consider the implications. My Canon Rebel XT captures images at 3456x2304 pixels. At 300 ppi, I can create a print as large as 11.52 inches by 7.68 inches. But at 360 ppi, the largest print size is 9.6 inches by 6.7 inches. Printing anything larger requires either reducing the image's resolution (taking into account that the printer is going to widen the halos), or find a way to upsample the image.

So, for people like me who want a specific amount of sharpening applied to an image, these considerations come sooner on an Epson printer than they do with a Canon or HP printer.

There- clear as mud, right?:frown2:

-Joe U.

Okay,

Just to make the water even more muddy - what your saying is its the difference between ppi and dpi and the variable dot sizes used by each manufacturer which makes it difficult to define the exact dpi that the printer will use to print a sharp image. So for each manufacturer you have to assess the max print for each printer you buy.

So what you have to do is send it to an infinately large dpi printer so the porblem goes away:thumbsup:

Roger