On 28 Jan 2001 08:57:16 -0800 Frank Paris (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> Meanwhile, Epson printers are good enough
> to produce amazing results right now, regardless of all the Epson bashing
> that seems so fashionable, here and elsewhere.
I think that depends what your benchmarks are. Measured against a good print
made the conventional way, on photo paper, or even against some dye-sub
technologies, Epson still have some way to go in most respects. Much as I find
the capabilities of (eg) the 1200 and 1270 impressive, the flaws (gamut
discontinuities, metamerism and longevity/stability) means I will only use mine
I think what Derek meant (and if he didn't, I do) is that Epson seem to be
introducing different printers and technologies in a scattergun approach rather
than resolving the problems of previous generations by incremental evolution.
Along the way we get new problems to go with the old ones, and end up being
guinea pigs. It is awfully confusing to try and choose which of about half a
dozen printers best suits your intentions, especially when it seems none of
them quite do.
The overall feeling I get is that Epson's approach is to saturate every niche
of the market and allow Darwinist selection to determine what is good. But
turnover in $$$ is not actually the same thing as quality.
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &