Any comments on the Epson C82???

I'm seeing these printers more and more with the 'DuraBrite' ink

logo. I assume DuraBrite is similiar to the Ultachrome ink set on the

higher end printers.

 

Anybody using one of the C82 and can comment on it's quality??? From

fiddling with them in the store images look a bit 'gritty' compared

to the 6-ink 820/25.

Glossy + DuraBrite = no go. The black durabrite ink doesn't stick to glossy surfaces, especially RC and even the colors scratch insanely easily. It can do decent on matte but you really need to have the print head aligned well so it isn't grainey. It has the same lifespan it just isn't optimized for photo usage the same way. It's big claim to fame is the fact that it is pretty much impervious to water.

I've made some prints on semi-gloss that look just fine. The 6-ink is probably better if you can afford it, but don't give up the longevity. Maybe go for the 2200.

I have one and am really happy with it. As stated above, if you want to print on glossy paper you should look elsewhere. It does a very nice job of printing on Epson Heavyweight Matte paper. When I print with full photo resolution the tonal transitions are actually quite smooth. In addition, the color gamut is better than I expected.

 

For me, the C82 has a couple of minor flaws. One flaw sometimes appears in smooth transitions from dark to absolute black. Sometimes I see a slightly visible "step" transition. The other is that the black density isn't as dark as I would like.

 

In summary, I think the C82 is a good compromise in that it is cheap, fast, and produces good quality prints. If you're looking for the absolute best quality that you can find in pigment ink printers, you should be looking at the 2200.

It's Ok, but I still returned it when my wife let me drop $ on a 1280. Published resolution is 1440 dpi compared to 770 on the 1280, but that prob diminishes with increasing print size, doesn't it ;-).

Smooth tonal gradation in the transition from shadows to midtones (like on a face in a portrait with a high lighting ratio but a smooth penumbra) is unacceptible, in other words, every portrait I make looks bad to me when printed on my C80. I don't think there's a practical difference between the C80 and the 82. Many non-pro photo people think I'm picking nits, but not any imaging professionals I respect. Some things look fine, but make the same print on a 1280 or a 2200 and the difference is plain enough. I'm glad I got mine for $100. But it does print a page of text really fast, and does well for a position proof when sending page layout files (Adobe RageMaker)to a service bureau. Worthless to print promo cards on for a professional photographer, and certainly not saleable quality for me... t

Who wants BAD prints to last 80 years? Who wants to spent extra $$$

for "Premium Gloss" paper for matt inks that smudge? Grit is for eggs,

not my beautiful flowers that I tried to print on the C82..even acceptably...until 5:30 am. When was the last time that that water caused a problem for one of your d-prints. I just want a descent print to pass around in a board room or at a party. Dura, used to mean durable. Bright does not mean MATTE. The above ? does show, indeed, the world is in paralel. I purchased the C82 Sat. and attempted to accomplish at least what was promised by epson. Not even close!

This PRINTER GETS AN F-. Who knows whats in the inks to make epson

think that this printer is worth the box it came in.

I've haven't been snake oiled/conned like this in a long time!

I welcome any rebuttles to make me think other wise.

Sincerely

John Grunke<div></div>

Currently reviews on the C82 are luke-warm, which seems to be due to both the slightly reduced gamut of the DuraBrite inks and 4 color vs 6 color printing.

 

I currently do most of my proofing on 820 and am more than happy with it, but not thrilled with it's archival qualities on coated papers. So far from reading, it seems the C82 doesn't solve any problem for me and in my first impressions doesn't have the image quality of the 820. Oh well.

Whew, the quality of the C82 really stinks. I have spent hours trying to profile the printer to match the Corel color test card. Who needs resolution when it can't reproduce the color from the camera? (Olympus E20)

 

The durabright ink stinks as well. Now I know why all of the demos show the print in a tube of water. That's the only way you will ever see a glossy print from this printer. It needs to be wet.

 

My old HP1315 did incredibly better when printing on "Olympus Pictorico Pro Hi-Gloss" paper. It's an expensive paper but nearly as durable as the DuraBrite ink. Instant dry, no smudge ... It doesn't like water but it's an ultra high gloss that rivals lab prints.

 

As soon as the ink runs out, the C82 is going to be donated to charity. I'm going back to HP.

 

Dennis Logue

I'm wondering if anyone has experience using a C82 or similer (82/84/64) with third party pigment inks, either color or a B&W quadtone ink set (in the spirit of Paul Roark's recent efforts)?

 

If the printer can be used this way, as the Epson 1270/80 is by many folks, it could be a smaller and cheaper alternative to the 1270/80 (possibly with some advantages -- greater resolution, perhaps?) *AND* this would avoid the problems and/or limitations implied by using the DuraBrite inks and papers.

 

Comments? Actual first-hand experience?