Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
I would suggest looking at the R800 also. It costs around $399. I am sure
you can find it for better. If you want larger sizes then look at the 1280
or 2200 by Epson. I own all 3 and they do wonderful work.
"Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:goadnSyFuPWGa2jdRVn-gw@centurytel.net...
> Since the original post said "up to 8x10",the Epson R800 is the one to
> beat.Also there are not that many Epson printers using pigment based
> inks.The gloss optimiser is found on the R800,and I think that is the only
> one at this time.The 2200 does NOT use it!As for price,more like
> $400-650.The 2200 being in the $600-650 range.I just trashed my Epson 2200
> and bought an i9900.I have several HP PSC units that do a good job.I would
> agree the i860-i960 printers are very good buys.I am very unsatisfied with
> Epson printers and their cutomer support!
> It may be several years before I buy a new Epson! I have purchased 5
> printers in the last 3 months,so I do buy more printers than most people!
> "bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:E6lJc.92010$Kn3.25210@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with
Win2000.
> > In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
> > best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.
> >
> > If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
> > choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All
> these
> > printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
> > correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some
> kind
> > of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find
> useful.
> > I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper
feed
> > path.
> >
> > Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
> > converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on
> gloss
> > papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be
an
> > issue.
> >
> > I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
> > professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there
> is
> > no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints
from
> > my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years
> with
> > no fading.
> >
> > Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
> > than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for
them
> > and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.
> >
> > As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
> > genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my
> Epson
> > 1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I
think
> > the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable
color
> > using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
> > Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
> > instantly).
> >
> > If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the
> rest:
> >
> > Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only
> provides
> > a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers
can
> > use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent
paper
> > makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
> > settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful.
> Epson
> > papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
> > papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster
> Photo
> > Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an
> ICM
> > profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
> > settings for high quality glossy paper.
> >
> >
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram