Lets hope I didn't swap them, but the 2200 uses pigmented ink, which is
supposedly to be more archival, whereas the 1280 uses dye ink, which is
less archival. However, there are tests who show that the 1280 output can
be more color-fast than the 2200 output, so YMMV.
From all accounts though, the 2200 also produces gorgeous B&W output,
using standard inkset.
Right now, I am having a lot of fun w/ the Kodak 8500 Dye Sub printer. A
different beast altogether.
At 08:04 PM 4/15/2003 -0400, Tom Scales wrote:
No, the 1280 and 2200 are entirely different printers. I can't explain the
difference, but the use different ink technologies. It started with the
1270 and 2100. In theory, the 2200 is more archival, while the 1280 is
better with glossies, but I believe the tests showed them to be similarly
archival.
...
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|