I've been using my new Epson R1800 printer for about two months now. I still have my 1280 but pretty much use it for text. I've got a supply of Color Life paper which is relegated to the 1280 too.
I installed a ColorVision Spyder 2 monitor profile when I hooked up the R1800 so I can't give all the credit to the new printer alone. My first prints on the R1800 were the sharpest and most color accurate I ever produced. Also, watching the cyan and magenta ink levels drop twice as fast as the other colors makes me suspect my "all colors in a single cartridge" 1280 wasted as much ink as it used. The R1800 has separate cartridges with archival quality inks.

Plain Skies

Epson R1800 has great performance.

I am using InkRepublic.com's ink system for R1800

http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800
http://www.inkrepublic.com/reviews.asp

if you want to get 1280, you also can get their system
http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=1280

Just FYI -

I just replaced my Epson 1280 with the Epson R2400 and am absolutely delighted with the quality of the prints. It prints quite a bit faster than the 1280 and uses the pigment based K3 ink set. They are sharp and the colors are right on. The black and white pics from this printer are fabulous. It is a little more expesive than the R1800, but I highly recommend it.

I got my R1800 this Apr from CDW, right after Epson announced.
I figured out it eats up too much ink actually. Even more than R800. So I obtained a CIS system from InkRepublic.com. now I am about saving 80% money.

Here are a couple basic truths to consider, based on my experiences:

1. Assuming we are talking pro-quality prints, such as weddings, you cannot print at home as economically as you can by uploading your images to a service such as MPIX or other quality lab. Through careful record keeping (but NOT even factoring in the cost of the printer) I found just for materials its at least 50% more per print to print at home, using the best processes and the best quality, longest-lived papers, thanks to the outrageous ink prices (the big expense is not the paper, it the ink). And if you factor in waste from prints that weren't quite right (typically in my case 20-25% waste!) it isn't even close - in my work, overall its at least 2.5x more expensive to print at home. Even factoring postage and assuming you would hit the print right the first time (good luck), once you are making more than 2 or 3 8x10's for example, you are losing money printing at home. In addition, there is the time you invest - not a problem if you have no other life or a VERY understanding family, but the time is significant.

2) If you are an absolute anal perfectionist you will prefer to print at home anyway - you get exactly what you envisioned and wanted, and you have the pride of producing a print that you made. It will just cost you a LOT more - not a problem if you print only for your own pleasure, or if your customers are truly paying for custom quality prints. If you are trying to match the lab prices, though, or your customers balk at 8x10's costing more than they can get one made down at the _-Mart for, well, you will lose your shirt printing at home.

3) The grand compromise is to process the images yourself (touching up, correcting, etc.), then send the images to the lab just for printing. I get (mostly) the quality I want with prints that cost a lot less (but I still invest huge amounts of time, unfortunately).

Bottom line: Printing at home is good for quality but is very bad economics.

JimZ

Both mentioned printers are excellent and will give great results and if cost is not the major concern I would think that going with the 1800 would make the most sense due to the technolgy advancements Epson has incorporated in it since making the 1280. As stated in the a previous post it will cost you more than having an outside lab produce it. One other item you should definitely consider to help in keeping your printing costs reasonable would be a color management system ie. color vision spyder 2, monaco ez color to name two that are reasonably priced for the average user. Trial and error becomes very costly not to mention frustrating in trying to attain a print worthy for display. So your up front cost will be offset by the savings in materials in the first year (assuming you are producing more than a few prints a year).

You may also want to see what HP and Canon have to offer

Has anyone who is making prints for sale thought to see if the lab prints you are getting are archivally rated by Wilhelm-Research (http://www.wilhelm-research.com)???

I have two photographic prints in my front room, one is a color negative 30x40 portrait done by one of the top labs in the country about 12 years ago. The other is a 24x36 inch photo-serigraph made with pigment silk-screen paint about 40 years ago, Neither image is exposed to any direct light, the blinds are always shut. The color-negative color lab print has faded at least by 50%, the serigaph is as brilliant as it was the day it was made.

For those of you who have been around for awhile and were doing photography when Kodak converted much of the portrait and wedding business to color, it was not very many years hence that Kodak was hit by a barrage of lawsuites because those color materials faded rather rapidly and significantly. Although some improvements have been made since they are still basically chemically derived dye images, and on RC substrates. Print longevity is dubious at best.

So has anyone asked their lab how long they WARANTY their prints will last?

Pigment -ink prints on ISO archival rated 100% cotton rag paper have been tested to maintain color integrity for a hundred years and ISO archival papers are tested to last at least 100 years.

So what kind of photograph are you selling for a cheap price made by XXXXMart?

I want an Epson because its a waste of epensive ink to use any other brand. My HP always has about half full of one color and 3/4 full of another when it needs to be replaced. It prints excellent photos but, I think I'll give it to someone that just needs to print docs. Epson has better ink.
Printers are cheap its the cartrige that ya pay big bucks for.

If you are thinking about an Epson Stylus Photo that has both pigment ink for long-lasting prints (UltraChrome) and individual cartridges for each color so you don't waste ink, your choices are the R800, R1800 and if you also want a top quality B&W printer as well as color the R2400. None of these are cheap printers.

I have 2 Photo printers which I use for the larger prints. The HP Photosmart 8750 and the Epson 1520. I have found both to do a great job on prints from 11x17 to the 13x19.
I also have the Hp Pro 970 which I still use for some 8x10 inch prints. I am very happy with the HP 8750 and would recommend it to anyone. The bigest problem I have found is the cost of the larger paper. I am now trying some from Ilford and it seems to work great with the HP.

If durability or fade resistance is important to you, you should be very careful as to whose paper you use in your printer. In general, printer manufacturers can tell you or have their printers tested by others like Wilhelm Research for use with their own papers, not from third party papers.

Frans Waterlander
frans2001@netzero.net