| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2002 08:42:21 PM · #1 |
| I own an Epson 785 EXP and have been very pleased with the quality of prints. Must use the proper paper settings for the best results---but that shouldn't be a problem. I also have an Epson Stylus C80 and it does well also, but I haven't had it very long and am still working on figuring out how its ink operates on the papers I use. My old standby Epson Color Stylus 740 has been great, but does not have the archival ink. I've also had experience with the color Stylus 880 (good, but doesn't have archival ink). The HP 2000 I used at work was good, but did not beat out the Epsons. In using the various thicknesses of papers for photos I like the "straight-line" paper feeding of Epson. HP makes the paper go through a curve and I did have some trouble with the one at work jamming---and it was a bear to get the jam out. Not so bad with the Epsons---the few times I've had a problem. |
|
|
|
08/03/2002 04:08:23 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by RedRuthann:
So, I have to decide if speed and the ability to change separate ink cartridges is worth the $101. Also, is quality sacrificed for speed?
I went through exactly the same issue when I was buying a printer a year and a half ago. I went around printing test pages in stores and eliminated HPs based on that. The Epson prints were better quality than the Canon, but I was tempted by Canon's separate ink tanks. (At the time, Canon only had four color ink, and it just couldn't match Epson's six colors.) In the end I got the Epson because quality was important to me, and because I got the 1270 on a closeout deal. I'm not sure which way I would go today, having not seen prints from the new Canon.
If you can't do test prints in the store, do you know anyone who would be willing to make you a test print from either printer? I'll make you one from the 1270 if you like. (I think it's the same print engine as the 1280, except I can't do borderless.)
|
|
|
|
08/03/2002 01:44:28 PM · #3 |
No offense taken! Let us know how your new printer works. Maybe I'll get one if I ever have a photo worth printing! LOL
Good luck with your decision/purchase.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2002 01:36:42 PM · #4 |
OH, yeah, forgot to mention that. Yes I have. To me, it didn't seem to make a huge difference - only slightly. Also when using that selection, it boggs down the computer and the printer and takes a very long time.
I think I'll try the Canon and some new paper. If I see that the Canon isn't really too much better, I can just return it.
Don't get me wrong, the HP is a good printer. I am just looking for better. I'm looking for near photo lab quality.
Then again, it is probably me....
Ruthann
|
|
|
|
08/03/2002 01:18:42 PM · #5 |
just double checking here...did you try the 2400x1200 printer setting?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2002 01:09:11 PM · #6 |
OH my, I have this thread twice, and still can't decide. I do know that I should not have gotten the HP1215 - although it is a nice printer, the output is a little disapointing (although, maybe I've become extremely critical of my photography...hehe). I am determined to get a printer this weekend and will have to make the choice between the Canon S9000 and the Epson 1280..both are same price at Staples (well, the 1280 is .01 cheaper...could be the deciding factor {smirk} oh yeah, and a $100 mail-in rebate). I know that I could find these printers for a little less money at a different store, but I'm using Staples as a basis/starting point for right now.
So, I have to decide if speed and the ability to change separate ink cartridges is worth the $101. Also, is quality sacrificed for speed?
I am very much leaning towards the Canon. When I purchased the HP a few months ago, I was actually going to buy the Canon, but it was still so new, and not many people had experienced one. So I went with what I had experience with, HP. But printers in general have come such a long way, that HP no longer is setting the standard.
I guess the lesson for day....is go with your instincts. I always second guess my original instinct/thought and end up regreting it.
I will let everyone know how the printer goes this weekend.
And, If I'm still not happy, then we will all know that I should just give up the whole photo and printing thing.....just kidding, but maybe would have to practice a whole lot more!!!!
Thanks again for all of your input. This site is the absolute greatest...that is, that the people that contribute to the site, make the site the greatest.
Ruthann
|
|
|
|
08/02/2002 01:54:41 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The Epson, if I'm not mistaken, will also print to the edges of an 11" wide page. That is a nice feature. The HP will not print to the edge, but it will handle a 13" wide page. Unfortunately, I have not found any 13" wide paper yet... :)
The 1280 (and 1270, which is what I have) will handle a 13" inch page as well. I use mine to print small posters on Super B (19" x 13") paper.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2002 01:45:24 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by goodtimecharlee:
I have the Epson 1280 and am very impressed with it. When I first started shopping for a printer I was very reluctant. I am a graphic designer and am used to dealing with high dollar continuous tone printers. I thought that I would be dissappointed with any printer I could afford, especially ink jet, but to my suprise I was amazed at the quality. Definately must use the Epson paper to get the good results and the Premium Photo Deluxe paper seems to give me the best results.
I think you probably have the best overall printer for printing photos.. the 1280 gives you large paper capabilities to go along with the 6 color system. I looked long and hard at this printer and I settled for the HP DeskJet 1220c. The HP was $100 less and I was very budget constrained. The Epson, if I'm not mistaken, will also print to the edges of an 11" wide page. That is a nice feature. The HP will not print to the edge, but it will handle a 13" wide page. Unfortunately, I have not found any 13" wide paper yet... :)
|
|
|
|
08/02/2002 01:24:31 PM · #9 |
| I have the Epson 1280 and am very impressed with it. When I first started shopping for a printer I was very reluctant. I am a graphic designer and am used to dealing with high dollar continuous tone printers. I thought that I would be dissappointed with any printer I could afford, especially ink jet, but to my suprise I was amazed at the quality. Definately must use the Epson paper to get the good results and the Premium Photo Deluxe paper seems to give me the best results. |
|
|
|
08/01/2002 08:05:18 AM · #10 |
I realize this may be arriving a bit tardily, but the Epson 1280 is the finest printer I've ever worked with, no holds barred. I appreciate its ability to print large format. The quality is superb when used with Epson paper. The roll printing feature is equally useful and incredible, because the folks I shoot at work always want a copy for themselves. You can't go wrong with Epson!
Thanks for the link to the less expensive paper site!
|
|
|
|
08/01/2002 06:04:57 AM · #11 |
I just wanted to say a big thank you to all the posters in this thread. I idly read it a couple of days ago and was amazed to see people saying that good quality results could be had from a < $100 printer.
Your comments seemed to suggest that the epson 6 colour system was one of the best so yesterday I went out and bought an Epson Stylus Photo 810 (uk model name - no idea if it's the same in America) which is 6-colour, prints edge to edge and cost me just 74 pounds (ex VAT) in Macro.
Needless to say I am amazed and delighted with the results. Especially on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper.
How to Epson make any money selling more expensive printers? The results from this little baby knocked my socks off. Printers have come on a long way since I last looked!
John |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 11:01:04 PM · #12 |
I picked up an HP1315 (essentially identical to the 1215), mostly out of curiosity,
and it''s an adequate printer for printing web pages, text documents, and various other
non-photo specific items.
Around the time I was looking at buying a printer dedicated to photo printing (and not
outrageously expensive), the S820/900/9000 had just come on the market, so I picked up
the 820. Unless your camera is from the future, or you have a digital back for a medium
format camera, you won''t get print quality output for anything larger than 8x10. This
is not to say you won''t get satisfactory prints, especially when the viewing
distance is taken into account.
I''ve compared the print quality (on various papers) between the Canon 820 and the HP 1315
and, not surprisingly, the 1315 was outclassed by the 820. This wasn''t particularly surprising
considering the 1315 is CMYK and the 820 is CcMmYK.
I also compared output from the 820 (at 8x10) on quite a few papers. Here''s the list of papers
I''ve tried:
HP (glossy photo paper) (I had some lying around)
Canon (glossy photo paper)
Epson (matte heavyweight)
Epson (photo quality glossy paper)
Epson (semigloss colorlife photo paper)
Ilford (Galerie classic gloss)
Ilford (Galerie classic pearl)
Ilford (Galerie smooth pearl)
Where possible, I used an available paper profile. I showed these prints to several friends and
the Ilford "Galerie smooth pearl" was consistently preferred over the other papers. The Epson
colorlife paper (and the other two Ilford papers) were consistently close seconds to the smooth
pearl. Some of the papers were consistently awful (HP and Canon). Including the Epson matte
heavyweight wasn''t altogether fair, but it still had consistent (and fairly high) quality.
I recently picked up some Canon high gloss photo film and it produces some incredibly crisp images,
but I preferred (as did most of the people I asked) the Ilford smooth pearl paper. It has the look
and feel of actual phot prints. The Ilford paper isn''t cheap (about US$40 for 25 sheets), but is
certainly worth it if you want high quality output. The Canon high gloss photo film paper is about
US$20 for 10 sheets and I don''t feel the extra cost is worth it. I''d have to say that Epson''s
colorlife paper gives you the best bang for your buck, but I''ll be sticking with the Ilford papers.
If you go with the S900 (or S820 if you don''t care too much about print speed) or with any of the
various Epson suggestions, you''ll probably be satisfied with the results either way, but make sure
you use high quality paper if you want high quality prints.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/30/2002 11:02:42 PM. |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 10:56:36 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Digipixer:
Has enyone had good results with an Epson printer and non-Epson paper?
Hammermill High Resolution Ultra Gloss is the only non-Epson paper I have found that gives good prints. Has anyone found another?
I've had good luck with the Ilford Gallerie series papers, and some of the Arches watercolor papers. Remember that you might not get the longevity with non-Epson papers, and you'll have to profile them to get the best quality with your printer. The colors are sometimes 'unexpected' right out of the box.
On the subject of printers, get an Epson. With $500 to spend, you can get a wide format printer, I believe the current modle is the 1280, then you can print anything from 4" x 6" to 12.75" x 18.75". As far a quality goes, all others are compared to Epson. If you're serious, that's what you should get.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:25:46 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by TerryGee:
Originally posted by Lisa:
[i]
Lisa - I don't think I would have mentioned that to anyone...one minute I'm reading you on a thread going into amazing detail about setting up that chat(of which I had no clue what you were talking about)....and then you're saying that you didn't know you had to select the paper to print at high resolution?
Quite interesting.
[/i]
LOL! I'm not as dumb as I seem...I just never read the manual. The particular printer automatically identifies the paper type...always left it on that setting. Then one day I was printing out test sheets to see what difference it would make if I selected different papers and brands...powey...the option lit up. And that's the rest of the story. (never thought I'd use a Paul Harvey quote...how sad).
Also, don't confuse me with someone who knows what they're doing...I just dibble dabble in everything enough to work my way around. That's all.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:05:19 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Lisa:
Hey Red,
I have the 1215 too. I made the mistake of not reading the manual (typical) and used it for a year before I figured out that if I manually selected the paper type (as opposed to letting the auto-select do it), I had the option of using the 2400x1200dpi. It makes a HUGE difference. Have you tried that setting?
Lisa - I don't think I would have mentioned that to anyone...one minute I'm reading you on a thread going into amazing detail about setting up that chat(of which I had no clue what you were talking about)....and then you're saying that you didn't know you had to select the paper to print at high resolution?
Quite interesting.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 07:39:17 PM · #16 |
| We are considering adding an Epson 1280 to our system, but currently have an HP1120c (the new model, I think, is the 1220), and it has been an awesome printer. It will print on just about anything, and the pictures from it have been amazing. For me, the best paper has been the JetPrint Photo Professional papers - for photos as well as art. The JetPrint is especially great with HP printers because it dries almost instantly. |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 07:21:31 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by RedRuthann:
Originally posted by Vinnie:
[i]I have a Canon S900 and the output is great.
I just recently purchased the HP 1215 photosmart. I don't think I'm really all that impressed with it. I hear so much about the EPSONs and the Canon S900 - is the quality really that much better?
RE: Canon S900 - I heard that it doesn't print on non-canon paper? I know this is a fairly new printer..How is it holding up?
I don't want to get another printer, but I might be persuaded if the quality is justified (perhaps I could sell the other one).
Any Thoughts?
[/i]
Hey Red,
I have the 1215 too. I made the mistake of not reading the manual (typical) and used it for a year before I figured out that if I manually selected the paper type (as opposed to letting the auto-select do it), I had the option of using the 2400x1200dpi. It makes a HUGE difference. Have you tried that setting?
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 06:45:15 PM · #18 |
Has enyone had good results with an Epson printer and non-Epson paper?
Hammermill High Resolution Ultra Gloss is the only non-Epson paper I have found that gives good prints. Has anyone found another? |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 04:49:21 PM · #19 |
I have a Canon S820 and I am very satisfied with the output. Keep in mind the S900 is the same quality as the S820 but twice as fast. My S820 prints an 8x10 in two minutes and that is fast enough for me.
I have not been happy with the Canon Pro Photo Paper--my best results have been with the Office Depot High Gloss Photo Paper. I use it and an ICC profile that someone created for the Office Depot Super Heavyweight Glossy and the match is perfect.
This and other ICC profiles for the S820/S900/S9000 and various other papers can be downloaded at the following link:
Canon ICC Profiles
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 04:46:12 PM · #20 |
I use an Epson 780 and have an HP 932C as well. I use the
epson for photo printing and the HP for everything else. HP 4-ink
output is really bad for photoprinting, compared to the Epson 6 ink
systems.
As many people have said, the paper is as/more important than the printer.
I've had really good results using Epson Colorlife paper, but you have to
be willing to use paper profiles, as well as having a well calibrated
monitor so that you get good colourmatching. Qimage Pro is very good at
this I've found. The 'print previews' will look very red/ magentaish
for the colorlife paper, but this works well in the final output and
balances out.
I've got a comparison of the printers on my web site at
Printer comparison
along with sample output from both the HP and epson, showing how
nasty the HP dithering is, especially for skin tones.
The epson cost $50 (yes fifty) from hsn.com - typically the ink costs
more than the printer did. Happily prints up to 8.5x11 right to the
very edges (no borders - though slight pinwheeling sometimes visible)
Great printer, but not fast.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 04:44:03 PM · #21 |
<Reaches over and pats his little Canon BJC-4300>
Don''t worry... ~I~ still love you :) And I can use a shot of you for "Something Old" if all else fails :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/30/2002 4:44:20 PM. |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 04:40:05 PM · #22 |
I have had TERRIBLE luck with the Office Depot 69# premium photo paper. When I print black and whites on it, they tend to fade to a green tint rather quickly. I switched to the Kodak paper and I'm having much better results so far...
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 04:04:03 PM · #23 |
Canon S820 has been very good to me.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/30/2002 4:03:36 PM. |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 03:17:39 PM · #24 |
The paper has as much too do with your success as the printer.
Sorta like camera bodies. If you buy a Canon or Nikon you buy the system as much as the camera body.
Printers you buy the ink and their particualr way to shoot it and the paper.
Kodak photo paper is found everywhere but it doesnt absorb ink real well. So...If you use an HP printer your black ink (which stays wet a lot longer in HP printers) will have a tendency to run. If you use Kodak paper with Canons or Epsons the ink will tend to bubble on the top of the paper and not look great.
Epson and Canon inks dry faster than HP so sometimes if you leave your printer for long times (a week or more) the nozzles might clog.
HP is more expensive to replace disposable plus they only have a 4 ink system versus the 6 and 7 ink systems of the Canon and Epsons. Hp has better customer service ratings.
I have used HP with Kodak paper for a year or so and get nice prints for personal use except for the black ink problem affecting photo albums. I like not having to keep nozzles clean when I don''t print for a while.
I have seen Canons and Epsons give tremendous results with Office Depot paper (or the OEM papers). And a nice Canon S900 looks to be my next try.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/30/2002 3:17:50 PM. |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 03:06:06 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Vinnie:
I have a Canon S900 and the output is great.
I just recently purchased the HP 1215 photosmart. I don't think I'm really all that impressed with it. I hear so much about the EPSONs and the Canon S900 - is the quality really that much better?
RE: Canon S900 - I heard that it doesn't print on non-canon paper? I know this is a fairly new printer..How is it holding up?
I don't want to get another printer, but I might be persuaded if the quality is justified (perhaps I could sell the other one).
Any Thoughts?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:19:19 PM EDT.
