| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
Peter, It had been my *opinion* that reasons for purchasing the 1520 in the recent past were very few and very far between. Today, reasons are even fewer and further between. Before TomCat (he's a 1520 proponent big time!) gets upset, let me explain. The 1200 wins the image quality war hands down. Period. As it should. Heck, the 1520's print technology is 3.5 years and 3 generations behind the 1200. But depending on the application, image quality threshholds are different. Thus, other factors such as price, speed, page capacity, durability, etc. may be more important. In just about every other category, the 1200 is either superior to or very close to the 1520. So if the 1200's image quality is unquestionably better, and most/all of the other attributes are better than or close to the 1520's, why would one even consider the 1520 over the 1200? This is a good question. I use to think that there was no reason. But today, there are 2 very good reason why one *might* strongly consider attributes offered by 1520 technology (note, I didn't say the 1520). 1) Quadtone printing. If you're into black and white/gray scale printing, then a 6 ink printer will merely complicate your life. A four ink printer is a much better way to good. Current quadtone inks sets range in shades from black to very light gray. They provide the necessary range to produce outstanding black and white prints. 2) Epson's "photo" series printers are 6 ink machines. While the 6 inks allow for superior image quality in highlight regions, the lite cyan and lite magenta inks are less light fast than the other inks. Therefore, they fade first. When they do, they cause a shift toward green in the color balance of the print. Not good. Thus far, 4 ink printers have proven to be more stable over time. Now, with these two issues in mind, might I propose that you compromise and look strongly toward the 1160 (same print technology as the 900)? It's printable area (12.76) is exactly the same as the 1200's (about .74 inches less than the 1520's). Even though it's a 4 ink printer, it's tiny ink droplet capability place it closer in image quality to the 1200 than the 1520. Yet, you still get all of the current benfits that 4 ink printers offer. With all of this said, the 1520 offers a couple of benefits. Whether they are important to you or not only you can decide. 1) Front and top paper loading (maybe even rear loading). Many people prefer front loading. Newer Epson models only offer top loading. 2) 13.6 inch printable width. If you need full bleed 13x19 inch prints, then the 1520 can handle it. 3) Tank like build quality. Not that Epson's newer models are flimsy, but their older models are solid and massive (it is also relatively large, so if you have limited table top space, this could be an issue). 4) Since they are older technology, you're likely to find one for low cost if you don't mind searching for a used or refurbed unit. That's my take on the situation. Others of course, may disagree. --- Peter Davis <pd@world.std.com> wrote: > > Hi. I just joined this list, so forgive me if this issue has been > discussed to death already. I'm an illustrator, and also a photography > hobbyist. I'm currently shopping for a printer. My main uses would be: > > 1) to print scanned pencil drawings onto to large (as large as possible) > sheets of pastel paper, watercolor paper, etc. as a basis for doing final > art. > > 2) to print 8.5" x 11" color samples of my art to include in mailings. > > 3) to print scanned photo prints and slides. > > I'm torn between the Epson Stylus Photo 1200 and the Stylus Color > 1520. The 1200 seems to give better print quality, due to the variable dot > size and additional two ink colors. At least, this is what I gather from: > > http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/dot_comp.html > > > However, the 1520 has a slightly (about 1 inch) wider print area, and I've > heard that there are no archival quality inks for the 1200. > > Archival quality is not a requirement, but it would be nice. For that > matter, just how good are the standard inks in terms of permanence and > water-resistance? I know 12 years ago, B&W inkjets used to be terrible in > this area, but I gather things have improved somewhat. > > Anyone have recommendations or comments on this? > > Thanks very much, > > -pd > > -------- > Peter Davis > Funny stuff at http://people.ne.mediaone.net/peter_davis > "The artwork formerly known as 'prints'." > Resources for children's writers & illustrators: > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/peter_davis/cwrl.html > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. > ===== Visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://greer.simplenet.com. Also, Greer and Associates (http://www.greeraa.com) offers studio photography, digital imaging services, web site design/construction, and training. Mike Greer __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users
|