|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
> Jeff Edgcomb wrote: > > I customer of mine is getting information from a competitor stating that > > the Roland is better for fine art thatn the Epson 9000 for the following > > reasons: 1) Epson clogs with pigmented inks, and 2) Because of its > > shimmying, there is not consistancy from run to run (of prints). Can > > anyone who is using the Epson 9000 for fine art comment on this. >> The Roland could be a better solution for fine art printing but not for the reasons mentioned above. And I'm using a 9000 for fine art. The Roland is a good printer and by buying it you get a turn key product. RIP + Pigment CcMmYK / CMYKOG inks + Dye CcMmYK ink. On fading quality you are restricted to pigment ink on Concorde paper there's no other combination tested by Wilhelm. The price for the printer and the consumables are higher though. The Epson 9000 isn't a turn key product for fine art printing. But there are far more inks and papers tested of that printer by Wilhelm at this moment. Not all positive yet but tests are continuing. If it is consistent for proof printing it is consistent for art printing. This printer was made for proof printing. I have not seen a Roland photo print that is better than an Epson 9000 print. And the Roland prints are good :-) Using Hexachrome can be an advantage for art prints depending on the colours in the image. The Epson doesn't have Hexachrome inks and there's no driver for it either AFAIK. Ernst -- Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk The point will never be metric - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users