# Film positives: Epson 2200?



## edwardo_machino (Jul 27, 2008)

I am starting up a screen printing operation and I have decided to move over to a wide format printer as my format is 11''x17'' and I've been using a Canon Pixma ip3000 to print two transparencies and then combine them. This process is horrible as they never line up right due to each print always being slightly bigger or smaller and messing up alignment.

So I have a budget of about $200-$300. Been looking into the Epson 2200 and a few others. The 2200 is a pigment based system, so does this work well for transparencies? A different transparency material is required for pigment based printing vs dye - can the final print be as dark as a dye based?

Also I see that you can convert the Epson 2200 over to dye based ink. What do you prefer, dye or pigment for film positive printing?

I also may wish to add a CIS system down the road, and I see the 2200 has some kits available.

So is the 2200 the one to go for if I'm looking to print dense black film positives that won't need to be doubled up, and maybe use a RIP? Other setup recommendations would be great too. Thanks!


----------



## kymtman (Jul 27, 2008)

Blastradys; When I had to print dark positives I would print one regular and flip horizontal and print another and place the ink sides together. this worked great. Now I us PowerRIPand their waterproof positivers with and Epson 3000. Cuts cost and time and render great working positives. Using Photoshop 8.0 to bitmap the image and do separations makes it all come together. Now I need to get out there with a walking "bill board" and hustle up some biz.


----------



## treadhead (Jul 26, 2006)

I've used both an Epson C88 (pigment ink) and now an Epson 1400 (dye based ink) and get the same good results using Ryonet R-Film Waterproof Transparencies from silkscreensupplies.com (forum sponsor). No need to double them up using the glossy photo paper setting and photo print setting.


----------



## AaronM (Mar 28, 2007)

The 2200 is a good printer, but if you are going to find a discontinued printer anyway, you might want to see about an Epson 3000. They have 110ml ink cartridges compared to the 2200's 18ml. Will save you lots of money and you won’t have to convert to a dye ink as the 3000 is already a dye based printer.


----------



## edwardo_machino (Jul 27, 2008)

I was looking into the 3000 but its resolution isn't nearly as high as the 2200, but I see that a lot of people really like it so it must not be too bad.

The only thing about the 3000 is the price. $600-$800 for a refurbished unit is almost all of my startup budget.

So what really is better for film positives - dye or pigment? Thanks.


----------



## AaronM (Mar 28, 2007)

blastradys said:


> So what really is better for film positives - dye or pigment? Thanks.


In my opinion dye ink is the best. I gives you a better black lay down and stonger dMax.


----------



## kendavis25 (Jan 7, 2009)

I have an Epson 2200 printer, and I want to start using it for Heat Transfers on T-shirts and stuff. 
Currently I've only used it for just everyday printing and have used the Epson brand ink that you would buy at any office store. 
Is there a different ink I should use?
I have seen different web site's say use there ink. 

One site said I only need Transfer paper. what type of paper would you recommend?
Thank you


----------



## marcelolopez (Jul 16, 2007)

Definitively dye is better for positives. I bought an old Epson Stylus Color 1520, (which I think already uses dye ink) and the empty cartridges from inkjetcarts.us, filled them all up with black ink for screen printing they sell (which I suspect is dye based ink) and voilà, I have a dedicated printer for positives.
So far it has been working wonderfully, only one R-Film positive from silkscreeningsupplies needed.


----------

