If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Do any other 1290s users have to wait a long time for their prints to finish? I timed a 10 X 8 @ 1440dpi at 23 minutes plus!! My brothers canon 9000 spits them out in minutes. Is their something I am missing or not doing right?
I have a 1280 and it is quite fast - I've been very pleased with both speed and print quality. Since these printers don't have a built-in RIP, your computer RIPs the image. Have those of you complaining about the 1290s speed looked at the possibility that your computer is the problem, not the printer itself?
Hi Paul, I don't think that the speed of my computer is the problem. It is a 2.0 gig Athlon machine running on XP Pro with 1 gig of ram and a 64 meg video card. It fairly shifts along in PS7 and other programs. It sends it to the 1290S printer within five seconds of hitting the print button. It just takes an age to print when it gets there. I have asked Epson a few days ago about it but haven't had a reply as yet. I bought it thinking I could print out clients pictures fairly quickly. Printing a roll of 10x8's takes all day and then some!! Have you any suggestions?
Which type of connection does your printer have to your PC? I know that firewire (mac term is firewire, i forget what you pc-ers call it) is light-speed compared to usb, and usb is fast compared to serial. That might be your bottleneck. (there is also scsi somewhere inbetween these speeds but that's besides the point) A RIP really isn't going to give you anything if you're printing directly out of photoshop - all a RIP does is interpret for programs that don't speak the right language for the printer; programs like quark xpress. -Lynn
Hi Lyn, My pc uses the USB 1 connection to match the USB 1 on the printer. IThe Epson 1290s only has parallel and USB 1 connections. There is constant tooing and froing from the printer cartridge mechanism so it is doing it's job but it just does it so slowly. Maybe if I was to be accept prints at 720 dpi I would be happy as it is quite quick then!
I use the Epson 1290 (usb 1.1) and as far as I know the 1290s is slower in speed than the older 1290
What makes a big difference in speed is the sttings in the printer option menu. If you go to perefernces of the printer menu (i.e. out of Photoshop), you can choose in the general stting automatic mode or manual. Choose manual and within the pop up window set to bidirectional printing. That means that the printer is putting the ink while going over the paper in both ways (on the way forward and backward). This doubles basically the speed. Epson sais this "could" reduce slightly the print quality. I have not the feeling that this makes a difference, but I have not tried it yet on A3 size prints with both settings on the same scan.
I looked at the bi-directional printing option but I can't select it at 2880dpi. I also didn't use it at 1440 dpi as Epson said the print quality would diminish. If you say that there is no real difference between having it on or off I will use it next time I do 1440. I just wish that the 2880 setting was a lot quicker. I will do a comparison test between 1440 & 2880 when I get a minute (or an hour or two!) to do it.
ahhh, o.k., I di d not see that you are suing it at 2880dpi. Did you compare results already with 1440? There is a difference, but I decided that it is not worth the extra time for the print in the higher resolution.
Yes there is a big difference between 1440 and 2880. I can get away with 1440 for proofs, small prints and people who are not very fussy about these things. I myself want the best image quality, even from my poor results so I use 2880.
I just checked it again. Here is my set up this time:
I printed out an A4 portrait scan on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper with my Epson 1290.
The portait was made with my Contax N1 and the 24-85 @85 and 4.5 aperture. Distance ca. 50cm to the face. Fuji Provia 100F rated -1/3. Scanned with Nikon Supercoolscan 4000 at 4000 ppi, ICE=fine, no color management by Nikon 3.1 scanner software.
I opened the file in PS 7 no usage of embedded colour manaagement of the photo, no colour management made after that in Photoshop, no level adjustments, only unsharpening - for both prints the same level.
I used the newest ICC profiles in PS 7 available for the Epson 1290 from the Epson site in the download section.
I saved my own "proof-settings" in PS 7 with this ICC Epson profile and paper, I did choose "perceptive" and checked also "Tiefenkompensierung verwenden" (I do not know the name in English for that - something with depth compression).
Then I selected print with preview. In that pop up window I selected "show further options" and in the drop-down menu below "colour management". There I did choose again the ICC Epson 1290 profile for the Premium Photo Glossy paper and depth compression.
I did press then print and in the new printer window I went into the preferences for the printer.
There I did choose the Premium Glossy paper, mode= manual (user settings). Again a new window.
I checked there quality: 1440dpi for the first print, 2880dpi for the second one.
No bidirectional printing to get the maximum quality (according to Epson), and I checked the box for "... borders" (last box).
On the upper right hand: no colour management. Then saving all settings. Paper size A4 and print.
The result of the two prints is that I can not see with my naked eye any differences on this size, except a very slight colour shift in the reds, which is unimportant. I doubt that I could see a difference on A3. I made a similar test on A3 long time ago, when I purchased the printer and based on that test, I concluded for myself that 2880 is not at all necessary.
If you found a way to achieve differences between 2880 and 1440, I would be happy to try your working flow. Better results are always welcome
I did the test last night and looked at the results in todays light. There is a difference between the two in that @ 2880 the colours are more like the original shot. They are noticibly richer. I used a wedding shot of mine, which had two hands showing the rings and the brides flowers against her white dress. The skin tones came out more like they are in reallity (the couple are friends), and the flowers were very different. The overall definition is also a little sharper. Apart from the colour shift there is little difference. So if I can sort out the colour difference I will save a lot of ink and time by using 1440.