[Leica] R2400 question ? 3800

[matthew at hunt.tc (Matthew Hunt)]

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