Epson Stylus Photo 2200 Ink Jet Printer (C11C387011)
Pay on Delivery (Cash/Card) eligible
What is this?
Pay on Delivery (POD) includes Cash on Delivery (COD) as well as Debit card / Credit card / Net banking payments at your doorstep.
We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.
Have a question?
Find answers in product info, Q&As, reviews
Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Description for Epson Stylus Photo 2200 Ink Jet Printer (C11C387011)
Epson Stylus Photo 2200 This phenomenal Micro Piezo inkjet printer is the first to employ seven pigment inks, and the result is color depth and fidelity beyond the capability of any inkjet machine to
|5 star (0%)|
|4 star (0%)|
|3 star (0%)|
|2 star (0%)|
|1 star (0%)|
Most helpful customer reviews on Amazon.com
Trusting to a Sony G400 monitior bought for $70.00 on ebay and that arrived the day before, I pulled up a scanned 4x5 color transparency from Apple G4 (scanned earlier on a Microtek 1800F), guessed at the density shown on the screen and printed a 8.5 x 11 sheet (Red River luster paper).
The results looked very pale, though color looked to be a good match. I then adjusted the screen brightness to match the print, then adjusted the image in Photoshop 7 to get a denser screen image. The next print was simply magnificent.
Playing with Red River luster and Epson semigloss and luster surfaces, I've gotten beautiful results--running a proof on 8.5 x 11 paper first and following with 13 x 19 inch prints after making minor adjustments in contrast or brightness in photoshop and color ink adjustments on the Mac OSX print window selections. General rule so far is to short red by 2 to 7 points and/or add 1 to 2 points for yellow and blue to counter magenta tints.
Scanned 4x5 B&W negatives, after being desaturized, produce very detailed images and near neutral greys--if you short red a little and/or balance with a little more yellow and blue. Degree of color adjustments seem to depend on who's paper is being used. But once its determined, it seems to produce consistent results. There is a noticable color shift in the finished images depending on whether viewed under incandescent light or daylight--something looking too tinted toward magenta under a light bulb looks fine in sunlight.
My Sony LCD is useless for color determination--but the ebay G400 CRT was the key to determining quickly some degree of good color and density management. It appears, so far, that careful proofing before large paper size runs is all that will be needed to make very satisfactory reproductions of scientific illustrations. The one landscape photo scanned from a 6x6 cm transparency of the Yellowstone River was equally easy to adjust and print.
I have yet to explore printng on matte archival papers, though I tried some Pictorico gallery glossy papers for B&W prints--very nice. The Epson printer instructions make clear that OSX will not allow straight-through printing of heavier papers (a requirement for using velvet fine art papers)--and I've yet to see if OS 9 will fix this limitation. I don't know if Epson has any new up-grades to address this.
I'll post again if any significant problems emerge. Nice printer--stunning photo reproduction. I even dry mounted some results after letting the ink try for a few days--though I've seen advice to avoid the heat involved. The printer drinks the lighter colors and the light black ink--buy a few extras of the light colors. I'll evetually spring for the Epson 4000--the 2200 is good for learning the ropes.
Use the papers Epson recommends for this specific printer. Go through the options available in the printer software. And it helps enormously to calibrate your monitor using a colorimeter rather than than less precise Adobe Gamma applet that comes bundled with Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. (Amazon offers Pantone/ColorVision PhotoCal and OptiCal "prosumer" and pro calibrating packages at good prices, but this adds to the cost.)
I use it with digital files from a 5 megapixel camera edited in Photoshop Elements on an LCD monitor calibrated with PhotoCal, and have been delighted with the results. The color rendition is accurate and the detail is comparable to a commercial print. The 2200 stands apart from it's nearest competitor, the Canon i9100, because the inks promise to deliver very long life, comparable to a commercial print. But.. it's also slower than the Canon, and more expensive.
For amateurs, I suppose the 2200 is overkill with its 13 x 19 inch capability. After all, how often will we make prints larger than 8 x 10? Will we be around in 75 years to verify that the prints haven't faded? Wouldn't it be less expensive to bring the files for those prints to a photo processor? Sure it would, but how much fun is that?