I received a deal I couldn't refuse for an Epson Stylus Pro 3880

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Hall of Famer
Location
Somerset, UK
Name
Ovi
Hello, I got an email from my camera club that someone is selling their Epson Stylus Pro 3880 for 200 £ in excellent condition with a little usage. While I haven't had a lot of success with printing my pictures myself in the past I am willing to give it another try as I always wanted to do Ultra Large Format prints, especially now that I have a very high-resolution camera as well ... and coming from fresh renovation in the house all my walls are empty :p

I haven't fully set it up yet as I got it today, I need to get paper and LLK ink tank as that's the only one empty right now. I may have the opportunity to sell some prints as well, that's what I would love the most to do with my photography, sell prints of my images (though I always struggled with finding a price to put on them).

I am slightly worried about the functionality compatibility of a 2014 printer with Windows 11 (the manual for the printer is quoting Windows Vista, XP, ME and 98 ... that takes me back to the nightmare that was USB devices back then).
 
Well almost one year later of doing nothing with it I put it up for sale on Gumtree for 200 £ with local pickups only and nobody wanted it.

I got my hands on some printing paper, not OEM, and I did some tests on it and DAMN I got addicted to printing fast. So fast that I am not selling it anymore.

PXL_20230629_210359374.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I did a quick test because I noticed the prints came out darker then I expected and I realised that I need to up the exposure about 2/3rds of a stop to get the exposure right and what would look like overexposure on my screen is actually perfectly good highlights on paper (yus, I know that self emissive light is not the same as reflected light, from screen to paper).

It's the kind of lessons I will have to learn and get used to if I want to print long term. Hopefully I can afford it because now with th confidence of printing I can feel a new wave of hope of offering photography service (locally).

PXL_20230629_203851244.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And I'm happy to see my Little Legs "in person".
 
Well almost one year later of doing nothing with it I put it up for sale on Gumtree for 200 £ with local pickups only and nobody wanted it.

I got my hands on some printing paper, not OEM, and I did some tests on it and DAMN I got addicted to printing fast. So fast that I am not selling it anymore.

View attachment 397163
I did a quick test because I noticed the prints came out darker then I expected and I realised that I need to up the exposure about 2/3rds of a stop to get the exposure right and what would look like overexposure on my screen is actually perfectly good highlights on paper (yus, I know that self emissive light is not the same as reflected light, from screen to paper).

It's the kind of lessons I will have to learn and get used to if I want to print long term. Hopefully I can afford it because now with th confidence of printing I can feel a new wave of hope of offering photography service (locally).

View attachment 397164
And I'm happy to see my Little Legs "in person".
Ovi, the most likely cause is that your screen brightness is set too high.

Lovely prints of your dear little doggy.

I really must fire up my R3880.

Maybe when I've finished upgrading my new computer today (!!).
 
After making a few prints on A4 glossy paper the printer is starting to buzz me about changing the maintenance cartridge box and some of the inks are getting lower so they will need replacement soon. But I am having so much enjoyment in making prints it's hard to stop now ...

... so the question I am starting to ask myself is should I stay with OEM inks or go with 3rd Party ones ... I know it's quite a loaded question for some people but the price difference (and the cost of replacing the whole thing) is quite huge:

*Cartridgepeople.com asks 150 £ for their own brand and 423 £ for Epson brand.
*Cartridgesave.co.uk asks 230 £ for their own brand and 417 £ for Epson brand.

That's just the first 2 results I looked into on Google, that is quite the difference, one I get double the ink for the same price as OEM and the other I can get almost 3 times the ink for the same price as OEM. The Maintenance Cartridge Box from both of them is the same: 23 quid.
I may be able to sell some prints, I gave a free image to work colleagues and work and they were quite happy with them, I might be able to get some gigs soon and hopefully sell prints.
 
Hi Ovi,
it looks like you're having some fun.
Regarding the OEM ink, I've always used Canon printers and have been delighted with the quality of their inks.
However, a couple of months ago I ordered replacements from Cartridge people and they emailed me saying they had special offers on their own inks and indicated they were just as good as Canon, but significantly cheaper.
My photo quality printer packed in last year and I've only replaced it with a 3 in 1 doodah, but it's been great with the Canon ink.
I ordered their stuff and having got through a couple of tanks I have to say I'm mightily UN-impressed.
The 3rd party results have been terrible, really muddy and drab colours no matter how I tweak everything.
This is only my opinion of course, but from experience I'd stick to OEM, if you can afford it.

But you may not be able to once you've taken your doggy to the vet to get that tongue seen to. :D
 
@L0n3Gr3yW0lf Ovi, replacing the print head in the R3880 costs around half the cost of a new printer ... It is guided by three or four lasers.

Also, Seiko Epson employed an external company to get their colours exactly right, when they had failed themselves. The light magenta colour was the culprit - the only difference between the ink sets for the R3800 and the R3880.

I use after market cartridges in my Epson XP-970 and my Brother laser MFC, with no problems. The owner of the company I buy them from reckons that I would have to be crazy to use any third party inks in my R3880.
 
I actually didn't notice this printing section before. I also have been rather absent for most of the year, though.

I did a quick test because I noticed the prints came out darker then I expected and I realised that I need to up the exposure about 2/3rds of a stop to get the exposure right and what would look like overexposure on my screen is actually perfectly good highlights on paper (yus, I know that self emissive light is not the same as reflected light, from screen to paper).
I assume this was already sorted out because of the age of the thread.

Once printing (analogue output) is predominant in this digital age, one can't help but see the backlight from monitors. The backlight is especially more pronounced in the darker hue and/or shadows.

There is also the case where DR is concerned. A high DR (HDR) photo or one with extremely lifted shadows and clipped highlights would look very flat in prints where DR is around 5 to 6 EV. If the user gets used to his own HDR, sometimes, the exposure baseline is adjusted according to his/her eyesight and, when the image is printed, it would look flat and either too dark or too light.
 
I actually didn't notice this printing section before. I also have been rather absent for most of the year, though.


I assume this was already sorted out because of the age of the thread.

Once printing (analogue output) is predominant in this digital age, one can't help but see the backlight from monitors. The backlight is especially more pronounced in the darker hue and/or shadows.

There is also the case where DR is concerned. A high DR (HDR) photo or one with extremely lifted shadows and clipped highlights would look very flat in prints where DR is around 5 to 6 EV. If the user gets used to his own HDR, sometimes, the exposure baseline is adjusted according to his/her eyesight and, when the image is printed, it would look flat and either too dark or too light.
Thanks. It's not the exactly sorted, I just adapted myself to the shift, when I print I push the entire image exposure by 0.66 EV (2/3rds of a stop) for average exposure in daylight or 1 stop if it's predominantly dark scene.

I'm not that picky or precise when it comes to 100% accuracy of color or dynamic range or noise from screen to print, as long as it looks good to me (and I'm not picky) I'll be happy with the print.

And I do tend to push the RAW files to an inch of their short DR lives :p
I push shadows and leave only the darkest parts as black and I pull down highlights until I get all the colour information back and if there isn:t any left I leave it as white (instead of dull grey).
 
Thanks for sharing, fellow Epsonite!

I'm not that picky or precise when it comes to 100% accuracy of color or dynamic range or noise from screen to print, as long as it looks good to me (and I'm not picky) I'll be happy with the print.
Yes, this is another one of those evidences of the phrase "shoot for yourself." It's also rather difficult to be picky with prints, especially now that we're so accustomed to the digital screen. A print is an analogue output and a hard copy. A hard copy will always be a hard copy. Digital copies will always be soft copies. The fact that the image you took with your camera and you printed is there in front of you is, itself, already satisfying.
 
Thanks for sharing, fellow Epsonite!


Yes, this is another one of those evidences of the phrase "shoot for yourself." It's also rather difficult to be picky with prints, especially now that we're so accustomed to the digital screen. A print is an analogue output and a hard copy. A hard copy will always be a hard copy. Digital copies will always be soft copies. The fact that the image you took with your camera and you printed is there in front of you is, itself, already satisfying.
I found printing to be a very effective tool againt depression, low moral and self-esteem. And for whatever reason I found giving away prints to help with anxiety as well, maybe it gives me back a sense if control over my life (don't have a degree in psychology to do more then a rough guess).
I haven't printed much this year because if the cost of the consumables but I might try it more next year. I would need roughly 600 £ to refill all the ink in the printer and I'm getting at 25-33% ink left on all of them.
 
I found printing to be a very effective tool againt depression, low moral and self-esteem.
Yes, it's definitely such a great tool against that. Seeing an actual image you took into a physical medium gives that sudden dopamine boost!

It's also a great anti-GAS tool. One would ask if a newer version of his/her camera would give a better print result and, most often, the answer is no. We only need 6MP and a really good bit-depth. MFT has already too much, too much details for printing, as well as many older pre-MFT DSLRs. When printing formats larger than A2 or A3+ and through a print lab. Some would actually get you to limit your resolution to 200DPI!

And for whatever reason I found giving away prints to help with anxiety as well, maybe it gives me back a sense if control over my life (don't have a degree in psychology to do more then a rough guess).
I always give framed prints as gifts on birthdays and during Christmas and enjoy seeing them smile.

Oftentimes, I take portrait of randoms and give them the result. Many would cry because they would ask, "I actually look this good, but how? I have been taking selfies for quite a while now and I've never seen myself look this good!" I would just answer, "Of course, miss!" That's the short answer. Deep in my mind my answer would be, "It's because the average equivalent focal length of smartphone cameras is 24 to 28mm and, at that focal length, the edges will be heavily distorted. You would look like you have a wider face, bigger nose and the ears are tucked behind." Of course, I won't say that.

I haven't printed much this year because if the cost of the consumables but I might try it more next year. I would need roughly 600 £ to refill all the ink in the printer and I'm getting at 25-33% ink left on all of them.
That's a decent price for all cartridges, I guess. Here the T580X series of cartidges costs around ~USD70 each RRP. They can be bought cheaper in some outlets but they are still genuine. Sometimes, Australia has a decent promo for a set of pigment inks. Shipping has just skyrocketed in the past few months, though.

By the way, if you haven't customised your own ICC profile yet, you can probably try these ones from Epson for A2+ max: Epson New Zealand - Stylus Pro 3880 - A2+ - (ICC Profile Downloads).
 
Yes, it's definitely such a great tool against that. Seeing an actual image you took into a physical medium gives that sudden dopamine boost!

It's also a great anti-GAS tool. One would ask if a newer version of his/her camera would give a better print result and, most often, the answer is no. We only need 6MP and a really good bit-depth. MFT has already too much, too much details for printing, as well as many older pre-MFT DSLRs. When printing formats larger than A2 or A3+ and through a print lab. Some would actually get you to limit your resolution to 200DPI!


I always give framed prints as gifts on birthdays and during Christmas and enjoy seeing them smile.

Oftentimes, I take portrait of randoms and give them the result. Many would cry because they would ask, "I actually look this good, but how? I have been taking selfies for quite a while now and I've never seen myself look this good!" I would just answer, "Of course, miss!" That's the short answer. Deep in my mind my answer would be, "It's because the average equivalent focal length of smartphone cameras is 24 to 28mm and, at that focal length, the edges will be heavily distorted. You would look like you have a wider face, bigger nose and the ears are tucked behind." Of course, I won't say that.


That's a decent price for all cartridges, I guess. Here the T580X series of cartidges costs around ~USD70 each RRP. They can be bought cheaper in some outlets but they are still genuine. Sometimes, Australia has a decent promo for a set of pigment inks. Shipping has just skyrocketed in the past few months, though.

By the way, if you haven't customised your own ICC profile yet, you can probably try these ones from Epson for A2+ max: Epson New Zealand - Stylus Pro 3880 - A2+ - (ICC Profile Downloads).
I do see a noticeable difference between the 33 MP from Sony a7 Mark IV and 20 MP from Olympus OM-1 when I make A3 prints but It's not something I am too bothered by at the moment. Where I do notice the difference is the quality of the gradation and detail between shadows and mid-tones, on the Sony it's a lot better and smoother and it's similar to how the RAW files are more malleable and easier to work with on the larger sensor ... but it is something I am growing used to and I don't think it will bother me for too long (I have been a Micro Four Thirds user a loooot longer then the couple of years of using 35mm FF setup, that is now sold and gone).

One of the reasons I got the Fujifilm Instax Wide is to be able to print on location and I always enjoyed giving away the images. Had to stop doing that because the printing cost is around 1.75 £ per image and not very financially sustainable but I will try doing that again next year. I enjoy going to parks and doggie walk areas and asking the owner if I can make a picture of their dog and offer them a print in return.

I will try to use only the OEM inks even if it's expensive, I have had some prints go really bad after a couple of months with 3rd party ink and paper a few years ago and want to avoid that. I haven't tried "optimizing" the printing process or output yet, I'm just using the default setup with Epson's own ICC and color management made by the printer ... so far I am pleased with the images it prints but I'm not particularly educated in color management to tell if they are good or bad. I haven't even calibrated my monitor, just using the factory calibration that Asus provides for their PRO ART monitors.
 
I will try to use only the OEM inks even if it's expensive, I have had some prints go really bad after a couple of months with 3rd party ink and paper a few years ago and want to avoid that. I haven't tried "optimizing" the printing process or output yet, I'm just using the default setup with Epson's own ICC and color management made by the printer ... so far I am pleased with the images it prints but I'm not particularly educated in color management to tell if they are good or bad. I haven't even calibrated my monitor, just using the factory calibration that Asus provides for their PRO ART monitors.
I've found that print degradation using our Epson XP-970 is not the after-market inks so much as using crap paper.

I always use Ilford papers. These have proven colour fast, even after many years as bare, unglazed prints. Ilford Smooth Pearl or Smooth Gloss.
 
A friend of mine recently bought a Pixma 100 Pro and has been working out the same issues... which inks, which paper, print profiles, and above all else getting the output to consistently match his expectations based on what he sees on the monitor. I'll be sending him some photos for printing so this is an interesting topic for me!
 
Where I do notice the difference is the quality of the gradation and detail between shadows and mid-tones, on the Sony it's a lot better and smoother and it's similar to how the RAW files are more malleable and easier to work with on the larger sensor ...
Copy. I believe Darktable can solve the malleability issue with some MFT RAW files. I am truly impressed with how that Filmic RGB module works. The shadows and gradients of MFT, although, a bit more sensitive to changes, can easily be tuned to one's liking. The software is not for everyone, though.
I've found that print degradation using our Epson XP-970 is not the after-market inks so much as using crap paper.
Definitely! I tried this really cheap set of A4s and my prints with them lost a lot of details and DR, especially in the shadows. I am going back to Epsons for regular prints. Hahnemuelle isn't on sale at the moment for finer cotton rag prints.
I always use Ilford papers. These have proven colour fast, even after many years as bare, unglazed prints. Ilford Smooth Pearl or Smooth Gloss.
Thanks for sharing. I've heard good things about Ilford papers. I will definitely try them for my chiaroscuro monochrome prints.
 
Back
Top