Epson 2200 vs Epson 1280

[5string]

I know that prints from the 2200 are supposed to last longer than those delivered from the 1280. Is the difference significant enough to limit one from selling photographs printed on the 1280? Is there a substantial difference in print quality?

[ballroom_boy]

I personally find the gamut of the 1280 to be wider but the prints are not archival (as you already know). If you were to sell prints from the 1280, just do not represent them as archival prints and charge accordingly. Prints from the 2200 are archival, but will cost more to produce - but then again, under the "right" conditions, should last about 80 years.

Hope this helps.

[killians913]

I have seen the output from the 1280 vice the 2200 and I much prefer the 2200. If you're going to sell prints that way, you really need to move to the 2200. Cost per print is more, but that means you can charge more for each print and both you and the customer will be happier.

[coughlin47]

I've figured my cost at somewhere between 2 and 2.5 cents per square inch on the 2200 ... including paper and ink. I've settled on 4 papers and using paper-specific profiles, but not custom made. For lustre, I've been using a 'cheapie' that I really like - Micro Ceramic Lustre (InkJetArt), for 'gloss' (don't want to get into the argument whether or not the 2200 produces 'glossy' prints) - I'm happy with the Pictorico High Gloss White Film (althoug it is quite expensive)...and the Epson Fine Art Velvet (I also use some of the Ilford Smooth Pearl/GLossy). For a more high gloss 'metallic'? look, I've sent stuff out to a lab and requested the Kodak Endura 'Metallic' paper (not so good for portraits).
Regards,
Bill C
ps....keep a good supply of ink cartridges around .... light magenta goes quicker