On Sunday, December 9, 2001, at 12:21 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > He said that while the 2000P prints will last longer > than those from the 1280, the 1280 actually is capable of producing a > wider > range of color. The 2000P prints, he said, are subtler and are generally > prefered by portrait photographers. He showed me sample prints of the > same > scan from each. The 1280 print was extremely brilliant and contrasty, > the > 2000P print was very attractive but decidedly more subdued. I suspect > one > could make up most of the difference in the way the scan is handled in > PhotoShop, but it's an interesting distinction.
It is. It's also the difference between the Epson 7000 and 7500 and the 9000 and 9500 (the 500s are the 2000P inkset, the '00s are the 1280 set). Much of the difference can be covered in Photoshop, but there are some specific neon colours that the 7500 cannot handle that my 1200 could. Now, here's what made the decision easy for me (and probably also explains the portrait guys' preference for the 2000P): the colours that the 2000P/7500/10000 can't handle are also colours that traditional chemical printing cannot handle. So, while I could print some pretty loony colours with a 7000, I probably wouldn't, if I were trying to match a photographic print. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
