What is up with the Epson P800 printer???

From my experience so far, trying to use it successfully numerous times, the front loading mechanism for loading fine art paper in the Epson P800 is one of the most ridiculous pieces of design I've ever seen.

I gave it no thought when I ordered the printer that it would be so different than using my old Epson 3800. Reading online, I see there are numerous people who have- as I have- wasted paper trying to navigate loading paper in the front loader. The top sheet feeder for non-fine art paper works fine, but the front loader is a nightmare. I've read over several times online people explaining how to "get the hang of it". While they admit it's a design flaw, they seem just fine with it, having apparently conquered the beast. I'm about to give up though and return the printer. Once I got it out of the printer, I literally just took the dented up piece of paper from the last attempt and slammed it to the floor.

Aside from issues with the front loader itself, the touch screen is also a hassle and slows down the process. It's already given me incorrect error messages. I was wondering how it would improve the process as opposed to exclusively using menus on computer screen, and I'm still wondering.

It seems that unless I find a video that goes through the process and visually shows the work arounds for loading fine art paper that are nowhere to be found in the manual or anywhere else online, this printer is of no use to me. Aside from that, I can't say I trust the reliability of the touch screen either.

I've used Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (which is not as thick as some other papers) in the top loader no problem, but have read that long term that will damage the printer.

Crickets

Is there no one who will defend this printer? Or do people just not print their photos anymore?

digitaldog?

Thanks and yes I've seen that.

What happens though is once I have inserted the paper and it seems aligned as they suggest, and then press the button for the printer to load the paper, it goes through a few second process and gives me a message that the paper is either skewed or jammed…… I'm trying to load letter size paper. No idea if larger sizes are less problematic or not.

So I noticed on the touch screen there is a 'Thick Paper' setting that was set on OFF. I clicked it ON, then front loaded a paper and actually got a print. However, the leading right corner of the paper was again dented and also the surface of the paper slightly scored in that corner! So I tried another new paper. Result: Paper jammed!

I now have about 8 sheets of damaged paper.

* NOTE: In this Red River paper video showing the Epson P800 being loaded the guy says you can top load sheet feeder with paper up to "about 13 mil thickness". I see no reference to that in Epson literature or anywhere else. The touch screen defines Fine Art Media for front load as: (0.29-0.7 mm thick). 0.29 mm = about 11.3 mil, so from that it sounds like anything thicker than 11.3 or 11.4 mil should be loaded in the front loader.

What does it say to do with Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper, for instance? That is 13 mil thick.

On the Epson R3000, I load that paper normally as well as other paper of the same mil or less. According to the printer dialogue window, the settings for Epson paper are properly set when you select that paper. If I understood it correctly.

I don't see Epson Exhibition Fiber listed specifically anywhere other than in the manual that lists it as one of the papers to use with Photo Black.

Velvet Fine Art (19mil thick) is listed on the touchscreen in the menu for top load auto sheet feeder though, which seems odd, since it's a thick paper. Maybe because it's a lighter weight? All very confusing, and now I can't get the printer to print at all from the top auto feeder, even with Epson Premium Luster, and double checking the USB connection after getting a message the printer wasn't connected.

I don't recall the last time I was this flummoxed over a piece of equipment. Maybe the first time I used a computer, certainly nothing like this with the Epson 3800.

Correction. The print setting menu (but not touchscreen) does have Exhibition Fibre as an option when using the top sheet feeder, so that's interesting. Which means I should be able to use Gold Fibre Silk without using the front feeder. I'll see if I can confirm with Epson. The person online who said Gold Fibre Silk fed through the top feeder would damage the printer over time may be wrong.

I've also tried using the front feeder by loading from the back which some have recommended. That's a work in progress, because I'm still not sure it avoids denting one corner of the paper.

UPDATE (for any of the Epson experts who are hopefully taking a look at this thread):

So even though the drop down menu when selecting Sheet Feeder on printer settings from the Epson P800 driver on my Mac gives the option of Epson papers 'Exhibition Fiber' , 'Legacy Platine (17 mil thick)' and others, Epson support tells me that 'fine art papers' should be loaded through the front loader. They couldn't give me a number on maximum thickness for paper in the Sheet Feeder though, so it seems like they're just going by basic descriptions that can be found in the manual. It took 10 minutes to get the answer I was given after the person talking to me consulted with someone else……

I just don't understand why the Epson driver would contain a menu that lists the same papers as options for the Sheet Feeder that include 'fine art' papers as does the Front Load tray selection. When I think about it tech support's answer that 'fine art papers' should be loaded in the front loader is kind of vague, since nowhere have I seen what clearly qualifies as a 'Fine art paper', and what does not.

Although I got 13x19" Exhibition Fiber to work fairly well loading through the back into the front loader, 8.5 x 11 (letter) has been 100% unsuccessful. In all I've sent nearly a dozen sheets of it through the front fine art loader, trying from both front and back access, with all of them being skewed or jammed, damaging the paper. Actually there was one that actually loaded and printed but it also damaged the paper.

Got Epson tech support on the phone Saturday; she had me change a setting in Mac preferences, but that didn't fix it either.

Now Epson is sending me a new machine. I'll update here when I see how that one works out.

Although I got 13x19" Exhibition Fiber to work fairly well loading through the back into the front loader, 8.5 x 11 (letter) has been 100% unsuccessful. In all I've sent nearly a dozen sheets of it through the front fine art loader, trying from both front and back access, with all of them being skewed or jammed, damaging the paper. Actually there was one that actually loaded and printed but it also damaged the paper.

 

Got Epson tech support on the phone Saturday; she had me change a setting in Mac preferences, but that didn't fix it either.

 

Now Epson is sending me a new machine. I'll update here when I see how that one works out.

I'm anxious to hear how that works out. I often think about getting a larger printer than my 13"x19".

I found this guy Jose Rodriguez on youtube who is really into inkjet printing. I considered returning the Epson and trading it for the Canon Pro-1000 but he says the Canon is best for someone like a commercial printer who prints almost every day. The Epson can sit for a couple weeks and be fine as far as clogging. Printers need to be used though, and if you don't print then run regular nozzle checks. My 3800 sat unused for 3 years and was fine when I started it up again, but maybe it would have lasted longer if I had run it more often and done the nozzle checks. The Canon does automatic maintenance on the head that uses ink if you don't use it, but potentially would be the better machine if you did a whole lot of printing. Most hobbyists don't, so the complaint in reviews is that the Canon uses too much ink.

Here's one of the videos I watched where he may have mentioned some of this. He does go off on esoteric tangents at times but I think he's worth checking out:

I considered returning the Epson and trading it for the Canon Pro-1000 but he says the Canon is best for someone like a commercial printer who prints almost every day.

Beats me why he says that. I bought a Pro-1000 instead of a P800 and have been very pleased with it. I certainly am not a commercial printer and don't print almost every day. In the months I have used it, the printer has only done an automatic cleaning cycle twice, even though it has sat unused for weeks many times. I've never had to do a nozzle check (knock on wood) and in fact have never initiated any maintenance at all. The prints are stunning. However, it doesn't take rolls. Also the rear feeder--on that printer, the one for heavy stock--has guides that don't go close together enough for really small stock, e.g., the 7 z 10 matte stock I usually use for cards. I have been meaning to write to Canon for suggestions about that, but in the meantime, I have simply used the top tray instead. I have never had a single misfeed either from the top or rear tray.

Beats me why he says that. I bought a Pro-1000 instead of a P800 and have been very pleased with it. I certainly am not a commercial printer and don't print almost every day. In the months I have used it, the printer has only done an automatic cleaning cycle twice, even though it has sat unused for weeks many times. I've never had to do a nozzle check (knock on wood) and in fact have never initiated any maintenance at all. The prints are stunning. However, it doesn't take rolls. Also the rear feeder--on that printer, the one for heavy stock--has guides that don't go close together enough for really small stock, e.g., the 7 z 10 matte stock I usually use for cards. I have been meaning to write to Canon for suggestions about that, but in the meantime, I have simply used the top tray instead. I have never had a single misfeed either from the top or rear tray.

That's interesting. With that comment he still seems to think the Canon is the superior machine, for color especially, but color prints aren't my first priority. According to him both printers have their advantages and disadvantages, which one would expect. The most glaring issue for me with the Epson of course is the front loader, but I just received the replacement so I'll see if it's any smoother with that than the first one. Some buyer's reviews on the Canon indeed mention the machine uses a large amount of ink. Wish I could try that printer out too but there's no way can I justify buying both.

Not using Exhibition Fiber going forward, other than the box of 13 x 19 I still have, unless I just sell it on ebay. A photographer friend recommended it, but I wasn't really aware that papers with optical brighteners aren't the best for longevity, until recently.

The prints I did several years ago with it seem fine for now. All are either in a storage box or behind glass. Some of the unused batch I have seems slightly yellowed, but not too noticeably.

So

I front loaded letter size fine art paper, first with Epson Exhibition Fiber, then with Museo Silver Rag and successfully made a print on each. However...

This printer accepted both tries and printed fine, but….. damage to the lower left corner with some also along the bottom left side, and 2 straight identical very light parallel surface marks each about 1 1/4 inches long. The surface marks are barely visible and wouldn't bother me but the dent to the corner and edge side scrape is just weird. Overall the damage is less than with the other printer, but it's still unacceptable. What's odd too is that when I make sure the long edge of the paper is squarely up against the side of the tray, the shorter edge visible in the front is out of square with the metal edge of the front of the tray. I have inserted a 3rd type of paper and they're all the same that way. Does this affect anything? I have no idea.

Going to call tech support tomorrow and see what the heck is going on with letter paper size in the front loader.

… The only fail on my side that I can think of is that all of my paper is several years old. I'm also still using Photoshop CS4 Extended which is doing weird things lately.

The results with the replacement printer are better though, so, I don't know.

so the complaint in reviews is that the Canon uses too much ink.

In my experience this is the most common complaint across the board for all inkjet printers of any make, so I would not make too much of this. Virtually every time I print something on my Canon Pro100 I get a low ink warning from one of the cartridges, but it was the same when I used HP and Epson machines.

So…… Epson support has been great over the phone, but they can't fix the problem I'm still having with the 2nd printer with letter size fine art paper in the front loader.

They've offered a 3rd replacement printer which I've declined. The only other thing I may do is buy a brand new box of paper and see if using older papers is the issue, but I doubt it. I mentioned to them more than once that my photoshop is the old CS4 extended, but they didn't really respond to that.

At this point I'm wondering if one of the Canon models that uses pigment based ink might be the way to go, or see if I can find any evidence that Epson has plans for a revision of the P800.

Red River Paper publishes estimated ink costs per page and estimate very similar costs. For a 13 x 19, they estimate either $2.09 or $2.19 (depending on which black ink is used) for the Epson P800 and $2.24 for the Canon Prograf 1000, which is the closest competitor (and the printer I use).

With any pigment printer, my concern is the ink consumed when the head is cleaned. When I was trying to decide between these two printers, I didn't find anything persuasive indicating that one was better than the other in this regard.

Red River Paper publishes estimated ink costs per page and estimate very similar costs. For a 13 x 19, they estimate either $2.09 or $2.19 (depending on which black ink is used) for the Epson P800 and $2.24 for the Canon Prograf 1000, which is the closest competitor (and the printer I use).

 

With any pigment printer, my concern is the ink consumed when the head is cleaned. When I was trying to decide between these two printers, I didn't find anything persuasive indicating that one was better than the other in this regard.

Thanks. Any more specifics on the Canon Pro 1000 you want to offer, I'd love to hear. I don't really need size capacity over 13 x 19, but the smaller printers seem to have small cartridges which make the ink more expensive per quantity. I may give the Canon P-10 a look too, but the cartridges are only 13ml. I'll check out the Red River site.

Thanks. Any more specifics on the Canon Pro 1000 you want to offer, I'd love to hear. I don't really need size capacity over 13 x 19, but the smaller printers seem to have small cartridges which make the ink more expensive per quantity. I may give the Canon P-10 a look too, but the cartridges are only 13ml. I'll check out the Red River site.

The only smaller-format dedicated printers I have used use dye-based rather than pigment-based inks. My printer before the Pro 1000 was the Pro-100, which is an inexpensive dye-based printer. The ink is a bit more expensive per ml, I assume because of the much smaller tank, but not a lot. Red River estimates $2.70 for a 13 x 19 on luster paper.

I've used the Pro 1000 for perhaps 6 months, printing mostly on baryta and luster papers, with some printing on heavy rag paper. I've been satisfied. I haven't had any problems with feeding. I did briefly have one problem that I think was ink on the outside of the head--some faint horizontal black marks. That might have been because I was feeding fairly heavy paper through the top feeder because it can handle small sizes, and I was printing small test prints. I think the paper bowed in the print path. The problem resolved itself after a few prints, so I never had to do anything about it.

I switched to the Pro 1000 both for the larger maximum size (17 x 22) and because I won't sell prints unless they are printed with archival inks. For personal use, however, I think dye-based printing makes sense for a lot of people. In my experience, dye-based printers don't clog seriously, even after long periods unused, and the colors are at least as good. They do fade sooner, but the newer Canon dye inks last a long time if the prints are not left in direct sunlight. I almost never had to replace a print made with either of the Canon dye-based printers I used.