The 2100 (and the older 2000P) use pigment inks which will help the prints to survive longer (ink color fading issues due to the light and gases like ozone). I'd recommend the 2100 to P�l if he thinks about selling his prints. I have the 2000P with CIS (continuous ink system) and 7500 Pro inks (which are actually the same as the 2000P original inks) and I am very happy with the results. I use mainly the LexJet Melinex Photo media (from http://www.lexjet.com) which is a high gloss white film by Dupont and works fantastic with the 2000P (and other Epson printes as well). For MF and LF originals the flatbed will do a fine job. I get very good results from my 6x9 and 4x5 slides with the Epson 1680 Pro scanner. For 35mm a dedicated film scanner is a must if you want to print 8x10 or bigger. Maybe the new 3600dpi flatbeds will work but I don't think they will meet the sharpness of a dedicated film scanner.
Antti-Pekka At 20:51 24.10.2002 +0000, you wrote: >I think the GT-9800 F will produce more than acceptable results, but a >film scanner capable of 4000 dpi would of course be better. By the way, >before opting for the 2100 over the 1290 or 1280, I would want to see a >side by side comparison of prints from the same scan. The last time I >looked, the scans from the 12 series printers were more dynamic and >brilliant. The 2100 is perhaps more neutral and still very good, but >some prefer the vibrancy that can be acieved with the 12 series. >Paul > >P�l Jensen wrote: >> >> Thanks for the replies so far. I've settled on an Epson 2100. With this printer, if >the advertising is to be believed, I can start producing and perhaps selling home >made, gallery quality fine prints. However, this leads to another question. Will a >scanner like the new Epson GT-9800F produce scans good enough to take advantage of >the 2100 printer? Or do I need a dedicated film scanner? >> >> P�l --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku * FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
