Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)

Re: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)

2002-06-28 by Doug I.

For the 2200 at least, B&H lists price at $10.95 per ink tank. It's on the
hidden 2nd page of the "accessories" tab when you look up the 2200 itself.

-Doug
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:54:18 -0000
> From: "jimhayes361" <jimhayes@...>
> Subject: Re: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)
> 
> Epson wouldn't tell me, said I had to wait for release date. Cost of
> each cart is an issue too. I know that the 7600 pro version uses 110ml
> carts that cost about $70 each...x7<groan>. The street price IS
> $700...that is if you can find a waiting list for one<g>.
> Jim H.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
>> 
>> Also, does anybody know the size of the individual tanks?
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>>> I hear late July.  List is supposedly $699 but has anyone have any
>>> idea of a "street" price yet?

RE: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)

2002-06-28 by Doug I.

Actually, there are 2 choirs on this subject. I sing in the one that says
cut Epson some slack.

From the get-go, they were the only printer company designing products
specifically for photographers. With the possible exception of individual
ink tanks, they've continued to lead by a mile when it comes to improving
the hardware for photographers (even though there are a lot more non-photo
business users they could be going after). They've done much of the hard
(and expensive) work required to bring ALL digital photo printing to where
it is today, yet we expect them to give it away for nothing.

My holy grail, and at least the initial promise of the new printer line, is
Epson simplicity, reliability and quality brought to black and white. I
personally look at a little more wasted ink as a small price to pay for
that. You, on the other hand, may prefer to save some money on ink with a
3rd party system, but invest more of your time dealing with its inherent
quirks, steeper learning curves and more complex workflow. Some people will
pay more to save time. Some will spend more time to save money. There's a
market for both, and it doesn't make Epson the Corporate Antichrist for
choosing the former over the latter.

Doug
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: "Lloyd O'Daniel" <lodaniel@...>
> Subject: RE: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)
> 
> Keith,
> 
> You're preaching to the choir. :-)
> 
> Lloyd
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:46 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)
> 
> 
> Lloyd O'Daniel wrote:
> 
>> Right. At least that's the "official" reason. My cynical evil twin
>> realizes that individual chipped carts also makes it much harder (more
>> expensive) to manufacture CIS units and 3rd party carts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> How about the fact that every time you swap the matte or glossy black
> cartridge out EVERY cartridge in the machine goes through a purge
> cycle...  They say it was IMPOSSIBLE to design a printer so it purged
> only the black ... YEAH... I believe that, and the orange shift has
> NOTHING to do with FLAWED cyan dyes, it was all in the paper...
> PUHLEAZE!
> 
> Not like EPSON wants people wasting ink or anything... LOL
> 
> Keith

RE: [Digital BW] RE: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)

2002-06-29 by Lloyd O'Daniel

Well, Doug, everything you wrote below is true. I have no problem with
Epson charging enough for their products to make a decent profit.
However, I submit that intentionally building in significant extra ink
waste when not technically necessary is a devious and underhanded way of
doing it. The fact that Epson thinks that customers are too stupid to
see what's really going on is also very insulting. (Perhaps they realize
that there are enough lemmings out there that will put up with this
skullduggery.)  Would you be happy if the only car you could buy flushed
1/4 tank of gasoline during every engine start? Or, if the fuel tank had
a smart chip that made it difficult to use any fuel other than the
manufacturer's? I think not. Apparently, the anti-trust arm of the EU is
beginning to feel these practices should be investigated. I would like
to see US DOJ get of MS's back and go after Epson et al on these
practices, as well. In my opinion, Epson and the other printer mfg's
(but especially Epson's Intellidge) are ten times more anti-competitive
than anything Gates has done.
 
Lloyd
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug I. [mailto:doug@...] 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:26 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
Subject: [Digital BW] RE: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)


Actually, there are 2 choirs on this subject. I sing in the one that
says
cut Epson some slack.

From the get-go, they were the only printer company designing products
specifically for photographers. With the possible exception of
individual
ink tanks, they've continued to lead by a mile when it comes to
improving
the hardware for photographers (even though there are a lot more
non-photo
business users they could be going after). They've done much of the hard
(and expensive) work required to bring ALL digital photo printing to
where
it is today, yet we expect them to give it away for nothing.

My holy grail, and at least the initial promise of the new printer line,
is
Epson simplicity, reliability and quality brought to black and white. I
personally look at a little more wasted ink as a small price to pay for
that. You, on the other hand, may prefer to save some money on ink with
a
3rd party system, but invest more of your time dealing with its inherent
quirks, steeper learning curves and more complex workflow. Some people
will
pay more to save time. Some will spend more time to save money. There's
a
market for both, and it doesn't make Epson the Corporate Antichrist for
choosing the former over the latter.

Doug


> From: "Lloyd O'Daniel" <lodaniel@...>
> Subject: RE: Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)
> 
> Keith,
> 
> You're preaching to the choir. :-)
> 
> Lloyd
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:46 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 2200 (Was: You want deep black?)
> 
> 
> Lloyd O'Daniel wrote:
> 
>> Right. At least that's the "official" reason. My cynical evil twin
>> realizes that individual chipped carts also makes it much harder
(more
>> expensive) to manufacture CIS units and 3rd party carts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> How about the fact that every time you swap the matte or glossy black
> cartridge out EVERY cartridge in the machine goes through a purge
> cycle...  They say it was IMPOSSIBLE to design a printer so it purged
> only the black ... YEAH... I believe that, and the orange shift has
> NOTHING to do with FLAWED cyan dyes, it was all in the paper...
> PUHLEAZE!
> 
> Not like EPSON wants people wasting ink or anything... LOL
> 
> Keith






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.