- In excess of 100
years light-fastness with unique EPSON ColorFast pigment
inks and specialty paper media
- Ultra-high 1440 dpi
printing resolution with EPSON Ultra-Microdot
- Edge-to-edge printing
on cut sheet media and roll media using supplied roll paper
holder
- Intellidge ink
cartridges for enhanced ink status feedback
- Variable Sized
Droplet Technology: VSDT
- Windows
95/98/2000/NT4, iMac, new G3/G4 compatible
- 1 year call out
warranty plus optional CoverPlus extended warranty
- Optional Stylus RIP
for true Adobe Postscript compatibility
I recently had the opportunity to use the 2000P for a few hours,
and was able to make a small number of prints using the Epson Heavy
Weight Matt and Semi-gloss papers. I also understand the Archival
Matt; Watercolour and Glossy Paper - Photo Weight papers are available in the UK from the
Epson
Buy Online site. The samples of Archival Matt that came with
the printer had long since been, however, it's
virtually identical to Heavy Weight Matt in visual terms, but is both
heavier and thicker.
As with all the other Photo series printers from Epson, the 2000P
uses 6 inks, based on 2 cartridges, one black the other containing the
5 coloured inks. Like the recently launched Photo 870/875/1270
printers both these cartridges are fitted with the Intellidge chip. If
you haven't already read or heard it before, the chip prevents the
use of 3rd party inks and refilling, but also means that ink
levels are more accurately recorded and the cartridge can be removed
from the printer at any time without significant loss of ink. I write
this because every time you remove and then reinsert the cartridge the
system must go through a head/ink purging cycle, this uses some ink.
The really distinguishing feature of 2000P is not the use of the
Intellidge chip, but of a new ink set based on "Pigment Inks". It
has long been known that "dye" based inks are much more
susceptible to light induced fading than pigment inks, but achieving
an acceptable colour gamut has up till now proved exceptionally difficult. With these
new inks Epson have succeeded in gaining a very long life (theoretical
100 years plus), whilst still retaining the wide and well renowned
colour gamut of previous Photo models.
The fact that Epson haven't quoted a droplet size for this
printer (either in the USA or UK) has allowed the rumour mongers to suggest that the Photo 2000P
uses droplet volumes as small as 1picoliter. Well if Epson have got down that
small they would be shouting it from the top of Mount Fuji, and they
arenít. The best I can do to explain this silly number is the
quotation in the original Press release that quotes "tiny pigment
particles as small as 0.1microns for the finest detail and
gorgeous highlights". Just so as we make things clear, any
correlation between particle size and droplet volume is VERY tenuous.
Put simply the
2000P doesn't produce droplets anywhere near as small as the Photo 1270.
Epson quote 100 year plus for the lifespan of the prints but this
is qualified as follows:-
Under fluorescent light (indoor
display condition) with glass mount. The data is calculated by EPSON's
accelerated test and it does not mean EPSON guaranteed periods
Lightfastness Test Criteria (Indoor Display Condition)
- Light source: Fluorescent light
- Intensity : 70k lux
- Temperature : 24ƒC
- Humidity : 60%
- Glass mount : 2mm, soda lime
- Fade criteria : Pure YMC 30% loss at OD=1
- Display-life Calculation : Total intensity/(500lux x 10hours x
365=1year)
Tests developed and conducted by EPSON using EPSON media & inks
To compliment the new printer Epson will also release 5 new media
types, but depends on region which 4 out of 5 you can purchase):-
a)
Archival Matt
b)
Watercolour ñ radiant white
c)
Premium Semi-gloss
d)
Glossy Paper - Photo Weight, Paper based media (United Kingdom
and Europe)
e) Lustre, Resin
Coated based media (United States and Canada)
These papers should be available in a range of sizes. The samples
of Glossy paper I've been given are more like Lustre than glossy and
to be honest I'm not that impressed with its appearance.
In appearance the Photo 2000P is two-tone grey/silver (make your own
mind up on actual colour) and is shaped along similar lines to the
Photo 1270.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2.
Photo
2000P in-use
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As mentioned above; I didn't have long with the printer, and as it was connected to a
network some of the features associated with "Status Monitor 3"
didn't work quite the way I expected. I also noticed that these same
features didn't work on the Epson 1160 and Epson 1270 connected the
same network, so I'm confident that this was more a local
configuration issue than anything untoward with the printer or
drivers. Needless to say the ink level images appeared as zero on the
driver screen grabs I captured for inclusion here.
The driver is labelled as Version 5.0 and was nearly identical to
that of the Photo 1270, etc. Unless I'm missing something this
printer doesn't have option for 720dpi or 1440dpi, just Photo or
Fine. Depending on media choice the driver chooses which, although you
can override some choices. I assume from this and the Epson
specification that "Photo" is equal to 1440dpi.
As with Epson 1270 we find an option for preview images immediately
before printing. The screen grab below shows the feature in use, but
more details can be obtained in the Epson 1270
review.
I've read on various forums that the colour output from the Photo
2000P can be less than optimal if printed through the default
Automatic mode, and that best results are obtained using
PhotoEnhance4. I didn't find this to be the case. Okay the prints
from these two modes differ, but not so that you would scream one or
other was bad.
Apparently Epson don't recommend this printer to those wishing to
print "neutral" black and white images, and certainly I
found printing greyscale prints something of an annoyance; they tended towards green under natural
light and lacked a solid black. Others have also
reported this recently, so thankfully it wasn't just me rushing
through a few prints without care.
The issue of poor Black and white printing seems to have caught the
attention of quite a few folk. Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape
has been looking into the matter in a lot more detail than me, but
like me agrees neutral black and white printing from the Photo 2000P
will be virtually impossible using the current ink-set. We have both
found (as I'm sure have many others) that the Photo 2000P produces excellent
black and white prints on Matt paper, but only when you use Black Ink
Only
setting in the driver. For me the use of greyscale mode in Photoshop
is also a poor choice, so instead consider using "Channel
Mixer" mode to optimise your B&W prints (see my Black
and White from Colour tutorial). For more details on Michaels
findings see his review, the link is provided at the bottom of this
page.
Colour quality using the default Epson profile is reasonably good, but
in my opinion lags slightly behind that of the Photo 1270. This is more down to the
ink gamut of the Photo 1270 wider. If asked whether
the colours were truly accurate; the answer would probably be no. I would
describe the colours as being softer, or
not so saturated, with yellows being the most obvious causality. But then again the Photo
1270 isn't truly accurate either.
It does however have the advantage
of being able to print on glossy paper, something by all accounts no
archival ink is good at, certainly the Photo 2000P doesn't even give
it as an option.
Media choice is via the usual drop-down window and comprises four
choices (at least that's all I could find). Surprisingly Epson
choice not to identify either Lustre or Watercolour in the menu, but
do indicate in the manual that when using Lustre you set the media to
"Glossy Paper - Photo Weight", and for Watercolour you set
the driver to Archival Matt. They warn against the use of none Epson
media, and also suggest that some Epson media might not work well with the Photo
2000P. Nevertheless I have been informed that the Photo 2000P produces
perfect prints on Lyson Fine Art papers (i.e. "rough" fine
art and "smooth" fine art).
The Automatic setting works in the same way as it does with the
Photo 1270 and the default setting of gamma 1.8 again appeared to be
the most appropriate for my images. If you find yourself having to
adjust any of the sliders by much more than 3 or 4 units then I really
would question the accuracy of your screen calibration. I certainly
found that excepting saturation and yellow issue mentioned above, the
output matched my screen very well without having to touch any of the
sliders.
The PhotoEnhance4 mode is to my mind identical to that found in the
Photo 1270, and since I'm not a great fan of "Presets" I really didn't give it much of an outing,
just a mono and a default colour.
One thing I noticed, when you select Archival Matt the printer
defaults to high speed (bi-directional printing). However, as soon as
you select Semi-gloss high speed is disabled. This means
bi-directional printing is switched off and print times go through the
roof (slowwww), and cannot be overridden. I didn't wish to
waste someone else's ink, so I only printed A5's, and at over 10
minutes this is twice as long as the Photo 1270 on normal speed.
With semi-gloss the default setting for MicroWeave is "On", but Epson
suggest that you may wish to also select Super(x) if micro banding
occurs. Users of the much older Photo EX will recall that setting, and
there was me thinking it was gone for good with the introduction of
the Photo 1200. Looking at the prints from the 2000P and comparing
with an 8 x Lupe; they more resemble the Photo 1200 in terms of dot
size than Photo 1270. Using Super(x) eliminates the little micro
banding there is, but still doesn't make the final prints the equal of
the Photo 1270. Mounting prints from all three side by side on the
wall and viewing from a more reasonable distance (more representative
of the real world) the Photo 1270 is still the best, but the margin is
small. I'm confident that most will generally find the overall image
quality from the Photo 2000P under these conditions to be more than
satisfactory, and certainly the equal of many lab based photographic
prints.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
3.
Would
I buy one?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The simple answer to the question "would you buy
one?" remains the
same today as it did the first day I saw the Photo 2000P in action ñ
NO! The printer is aimed at a very specific market; and since I'm not
interested in selling prints it would be wasted on me. Okay 100 year inks sounds great, but
to my eye the
Photo 1270 produces better looking prints, much quicker to boot, and
at a lower cost. The 2000P's print quality is certainly better than Iíve seen come
of any Photo 1200 using archival inks, but it is not as good as
the Photo 1270. Cut the price in half and the answer could change
though, that said running costs are less favourable than the Photo
1270.
The Photo 2000P is a fine printer, I think many professional photographers would like to
print their own work, but the reality is many don't have the time
and others will simply never achieve the required level of skill
within Photoshop to justify moving from conventional wet printing
(most buy this service in). For
a wedding Photographer colour accuracy is critical, just try telling
the bride that her $5000 gown really was a shade less whatever colour on
the the day. On the other hand Fine Art Photographers and Artists will look upon the Photo 2000P as a dream come true.
This printer will excel at printing "limited edition"
fine arts prints for sale or for exhibition, but for high throughput
work, no way, it's just too slow.
Just so as nobody misunderstands, I don't own a
2000P and my access was and will be limited. I don't even
consider this write-up to be a comprehensive review of the Photo 2000P
.
