I worked at the opening of the travelling Canon/AIPP(Aust Institute of Professional Photog) exhibition tonight and was struck by two things:

1. Matte papers
I've ebbed back and forth during the last week regarding paper types and surfaces (esp given the printers performance on non matte), but seeing all the prints tonight reminded me why I prefer matte papers over lustre, semigloss and gloss. Images on matte are just so much easier to view, and much more forgiving when it comes to flaws - whether that be mounting, hanging, lighting etc.

2. Manipulation
The majority of the images are heavily manipulated, moving much more towards 'illustrative' vs photographic than I expected. I'm not implying it's a bad thing - more that I was expecting far more 'straight' shots in such an exhibition, and far less obvious digital manipulation.

If you live in Melbourne or nearby country Victoria and haven't seen the show it's well worth a trip up to Daylesford to check it out, as part of the month long Foto Biennale. The Canon/AIPP exhibition is at the Pantechnicon Gallery, Daylesford, until early July.

I don't use the ICM Color management option in the printer driver as I let 'Photoshop Determine Colors' as it's now called in CS2, and select my paper profile there. The Printer Color Management option in the driver is then set to Off (No Color Adjustment).

However, for those that do use the ICM option you might be excited or concerned to see the following. In Windows 2000 at least, you now have a whole range of additional options in an Advanced ICM mode.



I haven't explored any of these and I won't be - ICM isn't a part of my workflow but if it was... 'Enough is enough and too much is plenty'!

The Advanced B&W mode in the Epson driver has yielded some beautiful results over the last week, I have said that many times over, but I'm finding it harder to see that it has a place in my workflow vs Color mode, which also yields beautiful B&W.

Via Adv B&W:

- The preview is small, and not of the image I'm printing.
- The controls are crude compared to Photoshop
- Great B&W results can be achieved via Color mode

Via Color Mode:

- My preview is the image in Photoshop
- Fine and deep controls for everything imagineable in Photoshop
- All adjustments are kept in the file vs matching saved settings to files
- Supports profiles

My only concern with Color mode vs Adv B&W for B&W prints is that it may be using a wider range of inks (am investigating) vs the B&W mode which may lead to the prints being less neutral and more prone to metamerism. I haven't observed any problems though, but will keep a look out for it.

I can see that for some applications Advanced B&W mode may be very useful - in a high volume/rapid turnaround environment for example, where you can have one master file and out a range of toned options easily. Some people may just prefer working with Advanced B&W Mode - no worries!

But for me Advanced B&W is currently feeling like why go this far with any image and leave critical adjustments until you're in the printer driver where the preview and tools are crude and limited, where you won't have much of an idea at all of what your image is going to look like until the job has started printing?

I'm not suggesting to anyone not to explore or use Advanced B&W mode for all their B&W. As it stands at the moment I prefer the results via Color mode by a small margin and I prefer the workflow - I'll be continuing to assess this moving forward.

Highlight Point Shift is a checkbox option in the Advanced settings of Advanced B&W Photo mode in the driver. What does it do? According to Epson:

"Select this check box to add a small amount of ink onto the paper-white area on the full-page within the printable area, to match the glossy feeling."

I tested this option as a part of assessing the value of Advanced B&W Photo mode. Highlight Point Shift should and did reduce gloss differential by shifting the whitepoint in the file with the result being enough information in the whites to lay down ink. Sounds good in theory, but I didn't find it to be case of warm and glossy feelings matched all round.

The preview image of the girl is pleasant enough, but
a) it's not the image you are printing
b) it's relatively small and
c) the change in the printed file can be far greater than that previewed (to the point the printed image is no longer acceptable).



All up this means when you check the Highlight Point Shift in the driver for the first time on any given image you are doing so blind and won't really know the result until the file is printing.

For my workflow Highlight Point Shift looks to be a waste of time. A better option is to check and correct the highlights in my file in Photoshop before printing - not at the last minute in the driver.

The ink/hardware/software combination in the 4800 is definitely a significant step forward over the 2100 regarding gloss differential - it can hang in there (sans Highlight Point Shift) for much longer when it comes to laying down ink towards white, in some files this fully addresses the problem.

Where there is no information in the file e.g. blown highlights, it remains that no ink is laid down. Highlight Point Shift will correct the latter problem, but it will do so by changing your image, possibly significantly, and you won't be able to assess the extent of the changes until the job is printing.

I've printed tests on both Breathing Color's Elegance using a custom profile and Hahnemuehle Photo Rag 308 using Epson's Archival Matte MK profile (I'll have a profile for the rag early next week).

By itself the Elegance looks very nice, but beside the Photo rag (even just using the EAM profile) it looks well... lifeless. It's not huge but definitely noticeable. The Elegance print has murky blacks, holding less detail (e.g. around the cogs in the Photodisc test). Overall the Elegance has a dull look to it compared to the Photo Rag, There's something else - it's difficult to describe - but it's almost as if the inks are sitting on the surface more wit Elegance than Photo rag, creating an uneven, almost blotchy sheen, especially noticeable in the darker tones.

I'm glad I went the Photo Rag route and am looking forward to results with a profile. For my purposes Elegance looks to be outclassed by Photo Rag at this point in time.

Print permanence looks like it will be back in the spotlight very soon (had it ever left?). Epson will be making it clear - print on Epson paper using Epson inks and they'll stand behind whatever claims they make regarding permanence (which is done for them by Wilhelm). Use any other paper, any other ink on an Epson machine and you haven't got a leg to stand on regarding permanence if things go pear shaped.

Epson have already had situations where vendors i.e. print shops, are running non Epson papers (often to save $), and their customers have had trouble with prints and have taken action against the print shop, which has in turn tried to take action against Epson.

Currently there are very few industry standards regarding testing permanence and some of the claims being made by other companies (regarding mixing and matching their papers with other inks) are not accurate, or at least comparable to Wilhelm - in as much as the light levels used in their testing is far lower, yielding more impressive claims regarding longevity.

I really hope the issue of permanence gets sorted out - it's the missing piece in the inkjet story.

Epson have confirmed stock of both 110 and 220 carts. Some stores now have stock of 220 and should have stock of 110's any day now. GREAT!

Note towards end of Epson help file re Black Conversion process:

Because ink charging after black ink conversion consumes a large quantity of ink, you may need to replace the ink cartridges soon.

Maintainence tank after Black conversion:



An Epson Pro Graphics source (I don't describe him that way to sound cool, I mentioned the blog to him and he preferred not to have his name published) confirmed that the black ink changeover uses approx 90-100ml of ink (not just black - overall) i.e. businesses should budget based on that amount in his words. The pump setup cannot charge the black line only.

As he pointed out, if you are a home user not selling prints from the 4800 this could be a significant issue - you should consider the 2400, even with its higher running costs it may end up more economical for low volume printing including swapping blacks.

If you are printing commercially you'll need to decide - do you buy a second machine. Based on a lease scenario you wouldn't need to be printing that many prints per month to be ahead if you were changing blacks once a month (in Australia for the 4800 you're looking at ~$1/ml). Even with it's higher running costs a 2400 might be a viable second printer option.

He also pointed out that officially Epson will not give exact information out regarding these types of matters - so don't expect it documented by Epson anytime soon.

Having done an ink changeover it fits in - the tray was foaming after the swap/charge and it didn't look all black to me. Cost per print in real terms i.e. paper and ink combined still remains really very low in the scheme of things. I am not a high volume printer but I do sell prints, and my attic isn't big enough for another 4800 (separate to marital issues!) - so my options seem to stick to matte or gloss, one or the other on the 4800 and/or maybe buy a 2400 for the lesser used and be limited to A3+.

ps. I mentioned the 'South African' method - you are on your own if you change inks over in any way other than the 'correct' Epson way and things go wrong (according to Epson). I'm going to try it next time I change blacks.

I've been out today, catching up on the what is happening in the world outside the attic!

I'm waiting to hear back from Epson regarding ink availability. I'd prefer not to run dry and have the printer sitting for an unknown length of time waiting on inks. So - the brakes are on temporarily.

A week in with the 4800 and I'm more than happy with my decision to upgrade from a 2100 - I think it'll be a popular upgrade path. The only thing that has bothered me to date regarding the 4800 is the Black ink changeover - it's not a deal breaker, but it will limit the amount I change back and forth, which is a shame given the exceptional performance of the printer on all papers I've tried - matte and gloss.

I'd hoped to have a selection of large prints out of the Espon 4800 ready for the opening of the Daylesford Foto Biennale this weekend. It's been a tricky thing to balance - selecting new stock on a new printer in a short time vs wanting to make a good decision. I don't tend to chop and change with papers once it's in the system - with costs worked out, images tweaked etc.

I've decided to forget about having the prints ready for the opening, it would've been nice but in the scheme of things it doesn't matter as much as selecting the right stock.

I've ordered a 17" roll of Photo rag and will see how that goes. I last tried Photo rag about two years ago on the 2100 and liked the results but at the time the cost per sheet was just way too high relative to the type of product I was wanting to sell, especially individually made cards and smaller prints where the profit margin when you include labor isn't much at all - plus I like to have a consistent look across the range. It would be remiss of me however not to give Photo rag a good go on the 4800 as the cost of 308 17" roll isn't too bad at all vs Elegance.

The custom profile for Elegance arrived this morning (thanks Jeremy). I'll also get a profile for the Photo rag and compare prints at that time. If anyone has used both Photo rag vs Elegance I'd love to hear what they think.

I've got a handful of A3+ test prints using Matte Black ink on EAM to compare - using canned profiles where applicable on the 4800. I've ranked them, favorite down.

1. B&W image using Matte Black/Color 4800
2. B&W image using Matte Black/B&W Advanced 4800
3. B&W image using Matte Black and custom profile on 2100
4. B&W image using Photo Black/Color 4800

1/2. 4800 prints using Matte Black
The two 4800 prints on EAM using Matte black both look very good, very saleable. Much like my earlier test on Gloss and Semigloss, I prefer the look of the B&W created using Color Mode, but not by much. Creamier! If I were printing with B&W Advanced mode day to day I'd probably try and 'turn it down' something similar.

There doesn't appear to be a penalty regarding color shift with the Color mode B&W print vs the Advanced B&W mode print - but I need to check this further as it is known that B&W Advanced Mode uses only the three blacks, light cyan and light magenta, but I would assume that Color Mode uses whatever it needs too, I'll keep an eye on ink usage to work out what it's using.

I'm thinking that I will be printing B&W via Color mode for now, and getting profiles done accordingly. I like parts of the Advanced B&W mode and can see it being useful for certain applications but I'd rather do those adjustments in Photoshop where you have all the tools you need, and everything is in one place with regards to adjustments to the file (you can save settings in Advanced B&W tho).

3. B&W image using Matte Black and custom profile on 2100
The 2100 print made using a custom profile looks good, metamerism is noticeable compared to the 4800 prints. There doesn't appear to be as much fine detail as in the 4800 prints but not by much. It's not a bad print at all - if it didn't shift so much I'd probably be ok with selling it.

4. B&W image using Photo Black/Color
Blacks look milky in comparison to those using Matte Black, as if a haze is across the image - like it could do with some local contrast enhancement. It wasn't great before (Photoblack on Matte with the 2100), it's not great now - unless you like that look. I wouldn't be happy to sell a print that looks like this.

Having printed Gloss and Semigloss since last Wednesday I am really quite happy to be back in the land of matte! No gloss differential - I love it! I do love the extra punch of the coated papers, but the reflective surfaces bother me. I have a few tests to run through in the next couple of days to compare Gloss and Semigloss prints to the same image on Matte (using the canned profiles, sorry) to get a better sense of what the tradeoffs are, but my gut feeling is I will end up going with a Matte paper for the bulk of my prints.

Today's test prints on Breathing Color's Elegance with Matte Black are very nice, even without a profile. I have a 17m roll of it on hold while I wait for a custom profile for one final evaluation before taking the plunge. I'll probably use that for my new premium and larger prints and use EAM or the equivalent for everything else. But - we'll see!

Thanks to Stephen for the heads up - updated drivers for the 4800 are available at the Epson Australia site.

Stephen reports the Mac version updated from 2.30 to 2.33.

On Windows the driver that ships with the printer is 5.50. On the Epson site the new driver is listed as Printer Driver 5.5bE. The installer says it is version 6.15E. The driver after the update is 5.51.

The lack of accuracy in Epson's driver preview (color-wise)has always been a PITA. I'm hoping someone with the printer can confirm this behaviour one way or another - or at least that it's confined to Windows or something.

Make changes in B&W Advanced mode - none of them show in the driver preview. e.g. I've trashed the Advanced mode girl, no matter what I do the driver preview is neutral. Maybe I've missed something obvious.




The converting a color print to B&W on the fly isn't going to be of much use to me, I'd much rather convert to B&W in Photoshop and control as many aspects of that process as possible..

With converting a color to B&W via Advanced B&W I can't see the conversion from color to B&W until the preview. I preview my toning on the B&W of the girl, not my own image. I get to the preview and see my converted B&W without the toning... where's a crazy face icon when you need one :)

As other users have said, the saving grace of the lame (color management-wise) preview is that it gives you a final chance to check paper size is set ok.

Here's a screen capture of the inks after the change over to Matte Black. What I should've also done is a screen capture just before swapping, next time. Main thing to note is the Matte black level.



It's probably worth comparing this to the screen capture of ink levels after the initial charge. Considering what I've printed they haven't gone down that much. I'll total everything I've printed tomorrow and add it to this post i.e. number of prints, sizes etc.

It looks like the 4800 has less of a thirst for light magenta than the 2100, nice.

Related, the Epson tech mentioned that ink usage per print data shown in the LFP utility should be taken with a grain of salt and definitely averaged over a number of prints due to the inaccuracy inherent in the process used to calculate usage.

I like how these 110ml carts are self-sealing! The Photo black is back in a plastic sleeve, stored in an old esky with my other inks.

I received an email today from Busisoft in Melbourne saying the 2400 is in stock (in the store). I would recommend Busisoft to anyone - Nella there is incredible!

Speaking with the Epson tech regarding the ink charge after swapping blacks (!) we got to talking about color improvements in the new printers. He was saying that one area Epson paid a lot of attention to is reds. I need to look into that further - the A4 Photodisc test has done it's job for me, time for real prints again.

So - if anyone can donate what they know to be a problem/challenging red file I'd be happy to print it and send the print back to them. Gmail me (please use this gmail address) if you have something you are willing to send.

Advanced B&W Mode IS AVAILABLE with the combination of Matte paper/ Matte black installed! Very good.



I would've been ok with it had it not been available. I'm wondering if Color mode may be the way to go for B&W as it supports the use of profiles. Epson recommend a setting of 'No Color Management' or 'Let Printer determine Colors' when intending to use Advanced B&W. I need to do some more testing.

Don't get me wrong though, the Advanced B&W Mode has produced awesome results that may unnerve people who have already shelled out for expensive B&W solutions - it's that easy! B&W prints using Color mode also look great out-of-the-box using canned profiles. Power to the people :)

You need to hold down the Menu button to enter SelecType mode. Don't hold it down for too long as it goes into cleaning mode :s

The changeover has taken approx 15 minutes. The process generally goes like:

- Execute the 'BK INK CHANGE' via the Menu.
- Toggle levers & remove all four carts on the left side,
- Insert dummy yellow, magenta and cyan to cap those while black line is drained.
- Printer then drains black line.
- Reinsert four left carts, including matte black

(there's a few levers up and down in the above)

- The printer then goes through what looks to be a full charging cycle with the same raising and lowering of levers on both sides of the printer. Maybe it is only actually charging the left side this time. I don't know.

- The maintainence tray is frothing with ink, not all of which is black.

I spoke to Epson tech afterwards. They're not sure as of now how much ink is used during the ink charge that follows the Black ink swap. The techs only received their 4800 today.

The change over process took longer than I expected, mainly due to the charge cycle at the end which you do need to baby sit as it requires levers up and down several times as instructed. The ink changeover process though is much clearer in practice vs the Help files. The directions on the LCD screen are very easy to follow.

There seems to be uncertainty even within Epson regarding workflow settings when intending to use Advanced B&W Photo mode in the driver.

I've just got off the phone to an Epson tech (who has just received his 4800). I wanted to double check the Color Handling setting in CS2 when using Advanced B&W mode in the driver and check on a few other things related to inks in use, behind the scenes differences between print an RGB B&W image using Color mode vs Advanced B&W. 'Let Printer determine colors' had been recommended.

The update is Epson's recommended Color Handling setting when intending to use Advanced B&W mode is 'No Color Management' but in practical terms this yields identical results to 'Let Printer Determine Colors' as you'd expect. I've just printed a series of tests and confirmed this.

Additionally we discussed the improvements/differences between the two series of printers. The Epson guy's take on it was the new series is primarily about ease of use, ease of getting good results, esp B&W.

As a footnote I have printed B&W using the 'Black' mode in the driver and it looked like shit IMO. I'll refer to the Help files but I recall it said to think of it as a draft mode only.

In case you have missed it (I had until late last night) the article by Joseph Holmes re his experience with the 9800 is worth a read.

I want to highlight some of his comments on color, as some have been distressed with my comments regarding the (lack of) _vast_ improvements in color.

Joseph writes:

"The gamut volume appears from 3D comparisons in ColorThink to be roughly five to eight percent bigger, give or take a few percent"

This isn't an assessment of prints by eye (you know, those two jelly marble things customers use when buying prints). This is a technically measured result. Is 5-8% as a vast increase? And does that translate to vast improvements related to color in the print? No, not always, even according to Joseph. He concludes (to me this reads as his assessment by eye):

"So far, every picture I've printed... has either had no change or been benefitted by the changes to the gamut, and every image has looked more brilliant because of the improved Dmax and surface gloss."

_No change_ or benefitted because of gamut. Looked more brilliant because of Dmax and surface gloss. My conclusion on color at this stage remains the same:

If you're expecting vastly improved color out of the 4800 over the 2100 you may be looking in the wrong place. I think it's going to take some time and effort to eek out significant improvements re color on the 4800 over Ultrachrome-based Epsons.

I've come in for a little bit of heat around the place regarding this blog, which is funny and expected. It's a predictable part of the space photography lives in these days it seems.

So...what's going on here then? This is a blog.This is a diary of my experience with the Epson 4800 from out-of-the-box onwards. My thoughts may change day to day, they may at times be horridly untechnical and unclear, they may be completely and uttlerly wrong - but I hope somewhere amongst the noise there's a few snippets of useful information and maybe the odd laugh every now and then. I am not an expert on anything or claiming to be - well, maybe coffee and chocolate :)

There'll be numerous technical and expert reviews of the 4800 online in the near future - if you've arrived here expecting that, I apologize in advance - you will need to look elsewhere.

B&W Advanced mode can convert a color image to B&W on the fly. This isn't of much value to me as I'd rather control exactly how my B&W looks, not leave it up to the Epson driver. Maybe this is a feature that will be useful in studios etc where a setup is known and this will allow output of a bunch of prints from one source file - color, B&W, toned - very quickly and with little effort. The kind of thing you'd see demo'd a trade show for a wow effect, 'Look ma, no hands!'.

I printed the color test chart tonight using B&W Advanced mode, and warmed the print a little, approx +15 towards yellow/red. The result is pleasing enough but it feels like you are printing blind - given this is all happening in the driver (Color Handling is 'Let Printer Determine Colors'/'No color management' when using B&W Advanced according to Epson) you are at the mercy of the accuracy of the girl preview image as to how your print will look.

Separate to color files, the options in Advanced Mode could be very useful working with B&W images and wanted to apply toning etc at the time of printing, especially once you got a feel for the settings.

When letting Photoshop determine colors (as the option is now called in CS2), i.e. selecting a paper profile in Photoshop, the Print Preview in the Epson driver remains useless so might as well be skipped.

Which reminds me - an Epson tech guy at the pacprint tradeshow mentioned that due to changes in how printing out of Photoshop is handled in CS2 (not at a user level, behind the scenes) Epson felt they'd lost an advantage they previously had over Canon and HP. I didn't pursue this further, but would be interested to know more if any hardcore color/printing person has an opinion. And on a broader scale it'll be interesting to see the implications down the track if this is correct.

OK this is getting interesting! A reader mentioned that in the Gorman interview (via Photoshopnews) Greg states he prints using 2880 with High Speed (Bi-directional) enabled.

Firstly let me say in the excitement of everything that has been going on, all of the prints I have done so far have been done with High Speed checked! It is easy to miss with all the new settings on the right in Advanced mode. High Speed is checked by default. No wonder prints have been spitting out like a photocopier! Keep that in mind re my earlier blog 2880 vs 1440.

So - I've gone back and printed the test sheet at 1440 and 2880 with High Speed turned off.

The four prints are very close BUT at an arms length I can easily pick one out as different - the 2880 with High Speed enabled.

In the 2880 with Hi Speed enabled the area below is especially washed out/weak compared to the other three prints. Once your eye kicks in you can see the difference throughout the print.



It's not a huge difference - the print by itself looks very good - but it is there when compared to the others and easy to see at an arms length, the colors falls short of the others.

There is also a difference between the 1440 High Speed print and the 1440 non High Speed - but the difference is much less than that between the two 2880's.

There is little difference color-wise between the 2880 and 1440 with High Speed off. At arms length I can't pick one from the other.

So this is something I need to investigate further, with a variety of larger prints and images. I'll also let the prints sit overnight and check again tomorrow.

Result: If this is indicative of what is to come, the best print output (on my printer) is gained with High Speed off. I'm also starting to lean more towards 2880 vs 1440. I guess the moral is test your own setup and see what is best for you!

I've missed an obvious test here regarding B&W - how does a B&W print outputted using the Advanced B&W Mode compare to a B&W print outputted using the Color mode. Is there any difference?

Of course there's all the toning and additional options in B&W Advanced mode and ability to convert a color file on the fly to B&W - but I'm sending a B&W print through both modes as is, just to see what happens - on Epson PSPP, using the Epson profile.

To add to the comparison I also printed the same image on the same paper on the 2100 using the Epson profile.

Results: The 2100 B&W isn't too bad IF you can find the light it happens to look close to neutral in. Metamerism is chronic on PSPP, I forgot how bad! Ignore bronzing and metamerism and the 2100 B&W doesn't look terrible beside either B&W print from the 4800.

The 4800 prints are cleaner, richer, smoother vs the 2100 print, which is murky and harsh by comparison - but not an enormous amount. Gloss differential is worse on the 2100 print. Overall, much closer than I expected (ignoring bronzing and metamerism). Out of the 4800 prints the 2100 print is closest to the 4800 Advanced B&W.

The 4800 prints using Advanced B&W and Color mode are surprisingly close. Both are very neutral. I haven't noticed any metamerism but need to test this more tomorrow. Both are definitely acceptable, saleable B&W prints IMO. The print made using Advanced B&W looks slightly harsher and has more density, like it was printed on a slightly harder grade of paper - but not by much.

All prints were done at 1440 - the 4800's are noticably sharper than the 2100. Not a huge amount but noticeable.

I'm surprised in a way - for an unknown reason I expected the Color mode print to be somehow fall short of the Advanced B&W, but if I had to pick a favorite, I'd go for the Color mode print - very subjective, and not by a great margin.

Summary:

- 4800 vs 2100: 4800 wins. Neutrality, Blacks, Metamerism, Bronzing, Gloss Differential. Aside from the problems, not by as big a margin as I expected.

- Advanced B&W vs Color: Both very good, very similar, neutral, saleable. Color has smoother, softer tones. Color mode by a whisker if that's your thing.

As a side note, I repeated this test on Velvety using Epson Luster profile (sans the 2100), with the same results.

More testing to be done re metamerism. Maybe the Color mode print will shift a little? Don't know yet.

More info on ink usage, based on the standard Photodisc A4 image as shown elsewhere in the blog. Unfortunately I didn't think to record the differences in settings for these prints - they are a mix of 1440 and 2880 on PSPP and PGPP.



Regarding the earlier ink usage information I posted. 16x20 refers only to the file name - these are prints I mat up to 16x20". The prints are approx 10x14".

After running a series of test prints on the 2100 a few years ago I decided it wasn't worth my while printing at 2880, 1440 was more than adequate. Time to revisit 2880 vs 1440 on the 4800.

I've run several test prints through this morning - again using the Photodisc test image, on Semigloss and Premium Photopaper.

Examining the prints closely by eye the 2880 has smoother tones, noticeable in the faces of the children. At an arms length though it is difficult to discern. At a normal viewing distance I can't tell.

There is a very slight variation in color between the 1440 and 2880 prints. With the 2100 I have profiles for both 1440 and 2880, these 4800 test prints were done using the same profiles for both 1440 and 2880.

I'll need to print a range of files containing more data, and at larger sizes than these A4 test prints. But if these tests are indicative of what's to come I will probably keep to 1440, which will more than likely is going to be the recommended setting anyway if I end up using Fine Art papers.

I walked around with the color test prints this morning, inside, outside, sun, shade, bulb, flourescent - and haven't observed anything approaching significant levels of metamerism. I'll examine this further, but the initial assessment is that it looks good.

I should have Matte Black ink in the next day, and am looking forward to testing it out on some Fine Art papers in the 4800 - the first of which is Breathing Color's Elegance, a 310g 100% cotton fiber paper and is acid and lignin free. It looks to be a very nice paper, I have a handful of A3+ test sheets here waiting.

From the information on Breathing Color's site Epson's Watercolor Radiant White profile is worth a try with Matte black, and Premium Glossy with Photo Black. I'll be getting a custom profile made, but will do a test print today using Photo Black.

I'm also looking forward to checking out the black ink changeover process :)

One interesting thing I've noticed is that the 4800 has a limited sense of humor when it comes to paper size, compared to the 2100. I've been cutting some odd sizes to save paper which you can feed into the 2100 without any problem - it doesn't care if what you feed in is different to what you tell it in the driver. With the 4800 the paper needs to match the size you've specified in the driver.

Regarding loading, I've used the front tray, rear manual feed slot and rollpaper and haven't had any problems to date.

This is the first printer I've owned with a large front tray, where you load the paper face down and it gets fed in and around, and returns on top of the tray. Don't know if I'll ever make use of all that storage capacity but the front tray happens to fit in well with the workspace I have available in so I've ended up using the tray for holding my primary cut sheet stock.

The rear manual feed slot, located infront of the rollpaper, has also worked well enough. A little clumsy perhaps - the addition of a small sliding plastic guide for the left side of paper would've been handy. You do have to slide the paper in fairly firmly before the printer is satisfied it is loaded ok. It's almost as if Epson have made this method of feeding paper available but don't expect many people to use it. I'll probably only use it to feed in papers I don't use that often.

The rollpaper setup has worked well. Even though rollpaper isn't my favorite thing(!), I may end up going this route based on the availability of 17" cut vs rollpaper.

I can't turn to the dark side, the world of non matte papers, without putting up a fight. I'm ordering matte black ink first thing in the morning. I have a couple of matte papers I just have to try with matte black ink, they are too beautiful not too.

It's a tricky decision IMO, the choice of stock can really influence people's response to an image.

I'll also be getting a few profiles made by Jeremy Daalder of ImageScience in Melbourne for the Velvety and a couple of matte papers I have here, the latter once I have the matte ink.

4800 vs 2100 printing on Epson's Premium Glossy Photo Paper, using Epson's profile for each paper/printer combo.

Again, these prints look VERY similar! Again the 2100 print is slightly warmer and slightly more saturated. But sheez, this is very close color-wise. Again the 4800 print sneaks ahead in the shadows - cleaner, holding more detail, but not by much. The win goes to the 4800 so far, by a small margin.

I can readily see bronzing on the 2100 print, I'd describe it as chronic. I can see very little bronzing on the 4800 print, no matter which angle I look at the print. I'd go so far to say as it looks to be a non issue based on this print and comparing to the 2100 print.

Gloss differential is visible in both prints, significantly less on the 4800 print. Both Glossy prints though appear 'worse' this respect vs their Semigloss counterparts.

A close result. 4800 wins, but aside from known problems, the 2100 is not far behind at all.

So - B&W is back on the menu. It's early days, but I'd say that Gloss is back on the menu too.

I may scan the prints tonight and post them, not sure what the point of that would be though, apart from eye-candy.

Conclusion - if you're expecting vastly improved color out of the 4800 over the 2100 you may be looking in the wrong place. I think it's going to take some time and effort to eek out significant improvements re color on the 4800 over other Epsons.

Wow, the 4800 and 2100 prints on Premium Semigloss two are so VERY close it's amazing. Very hard to pick the difference at an arms length, certainly not by color alone. The 4800 print is slightly more neutral - the 2100 print warm, but well within acceptable range. The color swatches look very similar - nothing in particular stands out as radically different, if anything the 2100 print is every so slightly more saturated.

The blotchiness in the 2100 blacks I mentioned on Velvety isn't apparent in the 2100's print on Epson's Semigloss. The 4800 print is holding slightly more detail in the darker tones though e.g. the red area I outlined earlier (the cogs towards the top left), not a huge amount - but noticeable, very clean. The 2100's is a little murky by comparison.


Gloss differential is far more pronounced on 2100 print - esp around the children's heads. It is present in the 4800 print but to a far lesser extent.

Bronzing and metamerism I'll look at later.

Known problems aside, these prints are VERY close - to be honest I thought there might be larger differences. Having identified small differences I can now readily pick which print is which (if I'm looking closely at the print), but it is very close at arms length and moreso at a viewing distance.

In progress conclusion - if you're expecting vastly improved color out of the 4800 over the 2100 you may be looking in the wrong place. I think it's going to take some time and effort to eek out significant improvements re color on the 4800 over the older Epsons.

I've purchased packs of Epson's Premium Glossy Photo Paper and Premium Semigloss Photo paper - currently have test prints coming out of both the 2100 and 4800 - this will be interesting! Where possible these prints are being made with Epson's profile for each printer/paper combo.

Hold a 4800 and 2100 print side by side on the same material (Velvety atm, going out to buy a range of Epson stock shortly) it's easy to see that gloss differential has been reduced.

(I am not referring to bronzing, I describe my take on the difference between bronzing and gloss differential in the post 'Pictorico Velvety, Color and Bronzing' )

On the 2100 Photo-disc test print below this is especially evident varying degrees in the light areas around the heads (tinted pink). On the 2100 print they are distinct 'holes' with hard edges. In the same area of the print the 4800 exhibits minimal gloss differential. This is a significant improvement imo.



It suggests to me that provided there is enough information in your whites to lay down some ink, the 4800's K3 inks/software/hardware do a significantly better job of addressing gloss differential vs Ultrachrome.

But - where your hightlights are blown out and there is no data, no ink, you need to look elsewhere for a solution. What I'm interested to pin down exactly is how little information in the whites you can get away with for a given stock before this problem appears on 4800 prints.

Another thing I've noticed is that the darker tones on the 2100 print are very muddy in comparison to those on the 4800 - e.g. the area I've outlined in red. The 4800's a very clean, the 2100's are almost blotchy by comparison.

I'm hesitant to post too many comments regarding color prints at this stage as outside of Epson papers there's not a whole lot of profiles available, and I don't have a whole lot of Epson papers :)

I've been printing on Pictorico Velvety which is similar to Epson's Semi-gloss/Lustre, using Epson's Lustre profile. I hope to get a profile made for Velvety in the next few days.

I've examined the Velvety prints and can see very little bronzing - very good. I'll take another look tomorrow under different lighting.

Some people use the terms 'bronzing' and 'gloss differential' interchangeably, others use them to refer to two different things. I fall into the latter. When I say bronzing I'm talking about when at a given angle large areas of the print, mainly shadows/high density areas, take on a 'bronzed' look. You know it when you see it, it looks very weird and caused a lot of people including myself to give up on printing on anything but matte papers. On the other hand, an example of gloss differential in my world is when there are blown highlight areas in the print where no or little ink has been laid and these areas reflect light differently and you see 'gloss differential', not really the same look as bronzing.

I still see gloss differential on barrier papers like Velvety and Epson's PSPP - unless Epson implemented something like a gloss optimizer (which I half thought they might on this printer) I'm not sure how they can ever completely get around it on papers that don't readily absorb the pigment ink. There's always the spray can. So has gloss differential improved any? I don't know - I need to do more back to back comparisons.

Anyway - minimal bronzing = great!

B&W on Pictorico Velvety looks beautiful - I prefer it much more than the look of Epson's PSPP. Color on Velvety looks very nice also, even just using Epson's Lustre profile. I think chances are a profile will squeek out some improvements.

As it stands I'd probably say aside from problems like bronzing being addressed (which is great), there isn't huge, immediately eye catching improvements in color prints, which were very good before, and they haven't gone backwards in any way as far as I can see. The wow factor is in the B&W improvements, you can't miss them.

Like I mentioned in the beginning though, too early to say with color for me, especially with my limited stock. I intend to buy a small section of non matte Epson papers in the next day or two and explore further, printing the same file to both the 2100 and 4800 and comparing.

I'll also be printing a few of the same files using Velvety on the 2100 tomorrow and comparing to those out of the 4800 on Velvety.