HP or Epson?

[leigh_ball]

I would like to purchase a new printer and I am having a hard time

deciding. The ones that I am thinking about are Epson R800, 2200,

R1800 and HP 8750. I have heard that the Epson 2200 is going to be

replaced by the 2400. But I'm not sure when it is going to be

released. I don't think I could wait too long to replace my printer.

I would like to get one within the next month. Do you think it would

be worth it to wait for the 2400? Has anyone heard when it is going

to be released?

 

I am planning on printing color and B&W prints. But I will probably

print more color than B&W. Color accuracy is important as well as

fade resistant, and of course photo quality. I prefer glossy prints

over matte. My budget is about $600. Unfortunaltly, none of these

printers are at any local stores for me to test.

 

From your experience which of these would fit my needs? Or is there

another one that you would recommend?

 

Thanks :)

[terrestrikon]

You and a couple other million people...

[eosbob]

The output that I have seen from the Epson R1800 has been very impressive. I believe it uses a topcoat spray to get better results on glossy images. It seemed to be very color nuetral right out of the box. The Epson machies in general have strong profile support, I can't speak for HP. Can't tell you about the rumored 2400, and I know nothing about HP printers.

[jon_austin]

Canon (i9900).

[mdickerson]

Look for any information you can find on per-page cost (ink and paper) before you make up your mind .. I don't have a link handy, but generally HP and Lexmark seem to be the worst, and certain Epson and Canon printers among the best in this department. Keep in mind that you can always get Frontier prints for about 25 cents per 4x6 or $3 per 8x10 if you can afford to wait a few days.

[gene_brewer1]

I am in the same situation. I am strongly looking at the Canon lineup of the iP8500 or i9900 although I am looking at the Epson R800 too.

 

The main issue, as some else mentioned, is the overall TCO (total cost of ownership). How much is ink replacement and does it work with any good paper or does it require OEM paper only?

 

I have an older HP right now and it suffices to proof with for now until I decide. I also am testing the local WalMart FUJI processor to see what the results are. That could be an alternative to printing on a inkjet.

 

Gene

[leigh_ball]

I was looking at the Canon 8500 and i9900 but from what I have heard and read their prints don't last as long. That is what is drawing me towards the Epson's and the one HP. It seems picking out a printer is more difficult than picking out my digital camera :)

 

Thanks everyone :)

[nicolek]

I would never buy a HP anything ever! Let me tell you my HP nightmare...

 

Years ago when flatbeds were still considered high tech and were still fairly expensive... I bought an HP brand flatbed that would scan negatives. I was so excited to get home and try it out.

 

Once I got it all hooked up and scanned my first neg you could see the image but it was all blue! No matter what I did... blue. So I called HP help desk. They said they were aware of the problem and that it had something to do with their software. They said all I had to do was download "the fix" off their intranet site, install, and all should be good. Well, (since this was back when I still had dial-up) six hours later with the download complete I installed "the fix". Guess what... the negative scanned was still blue.

 

At this point I'm so frustrated I'm ready to jump out the window! I call them back and the next person I talk to tells me that the so-called "fix" the other guy told me to install was no good either and that I should either use it as a straight flatbed alone or return it to the store. I was livid. I told them if you all knew that negative scanner software wasn't working why wasn't it taken off the shelves and recalled and why did you let me spend six hours downloading something that wouldn't work anyway! He offered no apology, no incentive, no alternative. I took it back to the store the very next day. To this day I have not ever purchased an HP anything!

 

As far as printers are concerned I have had Cannons and Epsons and I prefer Cannon much more!

[bobmichaels]

Epson seems to be preferred by the overwhelming majority of serious printers. While this does not mean they are better, it is some indication. More importantly, there is a large support infrastructure out there for Espon. This means people to answer your questions, people to develop workflows and techniques, and 3rd party manufacturers of inks, carts, and profiles.

 

This infrastructure points to the Epson 2200 as a preferable alternative to the yet to be released 2400. If you're just interested in making great prints, you don't want to be on the leading edge. You just want something that people know how to make work well.

 

Serious printing while sealed off to yourself is like running with a ball and chain around your ankle. The manufacturer offers very little support beyond the basics. That's why the existing infrastructure is so critical.

 

Myself, I'm happy with an obsolete Epson 1280. Using inks and papers from others than Epson, it makes prints as good as anything currently manufactured. I know how to make it work. There is the infrastructure to support it. Maybe when my current 1280 wears out, I'll switch to a 2200 but nothing newer. I only want good prints, not to be a fine art print technique developer. I'd rather spend my time shooting and printing for shows rather than figuring out how to make the latest and greatest printer make fine art prints.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

The Epson 2400 is now on their web-site so it can't be too long before it's released (They're not Nikon). I have an R1800 and the color output is outstanding. It's very fast as well.

[j_robinson2]

Be aware that though the HP printers make stunning prints & the life is projected to be 80-100 years or more they don't handle moisture well. A drop of spit. A bit of fizz from a soda or even damp hands & high humidity all cause problems.

 

Canon prints just aren't expected to last long enough to make them worth the gamble no matter how they look.

[ronbudway]

I have an HP photo printer that makes outstanding prints, but, as someone else

pointed out -- one little drop of moisture and the print is ruined, it bubbles up,

wiping -- even instantly -- causes a smear. I would not invest $600 in any injet

printer.

 

My understanding is that in order for the nozzles to not be clogged, the inks need

to be soluble by themselves which means they liquify when they come in contact

with any amount of moisture.

 

I am ready to move to a pigment-based epson.

[doug_dolde]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/K3-Preview.shtml

[mattb1]

Well, I would suggest HP and maybe Canon. I like my old Epson 1270 a lot, but it doesn't compare with my new HP. The color management is much easier and stable compared to the Epsons. IMO it seems that people who are more into craft than art seem to be drawn to the Epsons. Not that they don't make good art, its just that the Epsons need extra care and feeding and that appeals to a lot of photographers. Also, photographers also have a lot of brand loyalty (and hold a grudge a long time, I know I do). I'd much rather not spend time fussing over clogged heads and metamerism. I do agree that the HP inks are prone to water damage, however I have not had a problem. Come on, do you really eat you lunch over your art?

 

I was never able to get a B&W print from my old Epson, and I've heard that the pigment inks are even harder. But my new HP I've made better B&W prints than I ever had, better than my attempts in a darkroom as well. And the color is just amazing, stunning and vivid when needed and great tones. And lastly, I've seen people say that the new generation of HP's are the most frugal with ink of any printers. So far it seems true, gone through a lot of paper but have not had to buy ink yet.

 

Also check out the Canons. I still have prints from my first Canon printer that look great, and they were suppose to fade. They make good products.

 

How the one poster fells about HP because of a scanner, that's how I feel about Epson and their scanners. I don't want my money back from their cheap scanners, I want my time back. But sadly they can't. This could be coloring my opinion, but I just don't see Epson delivering a product that suits my needs any time soon. Given the fussiness, ink costs, extra time required, metamerism, and other "needs" of the Epsons I could not endorse their printers.

 

Would a HP be the best for you? Maybe, they seem to be the leading edge right now. IMO, Epson has done anything beyond the 1270 for years.

[micheleberti]

"<i>The Epson 2400 is now on their web-site</i>"

<p>I can't find it. Can u provide a link please?

[ronald_smith2]

The high-end HP printers make fantastic b/w prints, nobody else even comes close. Their color prints are equally impressive, as well, none of the gaudiness some color prints exhibit. You might find the cost of new tanks to be high, since there are no 3rd-party makers of HP ink, but they are very stable and you'll never get a clogged head.......The HP printers are built like a tank, IMHO.

[matti_koskinen]

hi all,

I just filled my HP's no. 59 cartridge with InkTec's ink, and get good nozzles as well as good looking prints. They say it'll last as long as HP's own inks. The set with 3x25ml bottles was ?12+postage from England to Finland. If I can fill say 7 to 8 times a cart, this really pays itself fast. I also tried a hack of refilling after hacksawing and washing no.78 cart, with IncTec's inks, but gort only dark gray to work.

 

I was almost ready to buy an Epson 1160 for B&W work, when this morning on The DigitalBWthePrint-list people complained about their Epsons and bad clogging problems, so I'm leaning towards HP Deskjet 9800, which uses the same inks as HP 8750 except blue ink. But as I'm more interested in B&W, and the both uses the Vivera inks and no. 100 cart, I'm thinking of HP 9800, as the price is also 200 ? lower than 8750. And I don't need card readers or displays in the printer. But I haven't found any reviews of 9800, would be nice to read what people who actually have used it, say.

[jreades]

<p>My understanding is that the only difference between the existing R800 and the yet-to-be-released 2400 is the ability to print on A3-sized paper. So I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but to my mind unless you need to print larger than A4 (slightly larger than US letter-size) then there's no need to go with a much bigger and more expensive printer...</p>

 

<p>For what it's worth, I just bought an R800 and unpacked it last Friday. Took me six or seven prints on the included "test pack" to figure out the *basics* of colour managing the process under OS X and I'm not very happy with the results. It's not perfect yet, but when I get the colour 'right' then the quality of these prints blows me away. I primarily blame my lack of knowledge rather than the printer, although getting updated ICC profiles made a *very* big difference.</p>

 

<p>You can read what I'be through here:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C5QN">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C5QN</a>

 

<p>Hope this helps,</p>

 

<p>jon</p>

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Here is the link to the R2400 on the Epson USA web-site:

 

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540920

 

It doesn't appear to be a derivative of the R800 as it has a whole new inkset with 3 shades of black and special set-up for B&W printing. Looks like it may be my single printer solution. Anyone interested in a new R1800? and newish 1280?

[jreades]

Ah, maybe it was was the *1400* that I was thinking of...

 

jon

[william_yu]

Leigh:

 

I have been an Epson 2200 and R800 user for some time, and I recently sold my Epson 2200 and bought a HP Designjet 130 after hearing good comments from some people at Photo.net. Based on your needs, I would recommend the Epspn R1800. Here are my experience with both Epson and HP:

 

1. Epson 2200 is the old model, most people use it for B&W. Printing on glossy paper is an issue because of the bronzing problem.

2. Epson R800 is a great printer. Vibrant color, fast, sharp, and the high gloss inks solve the bronzing issue. I do not have any clogging issue with my Epson printers, maybe because I all use OEM inks.

3. HP is great for B&W. So far HP is the only wide format printers that have both longevity and good glossy prints with minimal bronzing. The big issue with HP printers is that the prints are very prone to moisture and smearing. If you are discussing with friends or clients in front of the picture, and some how a small drop of water gets on it, the picture will smear and be ruined.

 

So based on your budget and the printers you are looking at, I assume the biggest size you need is 13x19. I would go for the R1800. In fact, if Epson comes out with a 7600 replacement with high gloss inks, I would sell my HP and buy Epson again.

[leigh_ball]

Hmmmm, there are so many choices out there. Currently I own a Canon i960 and it broke already after only having it for a year and a half. So, I am kind of leary of purchasing another Canon. Plus I thought that the Canon's print life isn't as good as Epson or HP?

 

The one thing that makes me worried with the HP is the smudging. And about 3 years ago, I owned a HP printer and wasn't too impressed with it. But I know that technology does change pretty quickly so maybe they are better. The reason why this is important is because I am making a scrapbook and once the pictures are in the scrapbook I can't take them out without ruining the whole page. So, I would prefer not to have to worry about fading, humidy or any other damage that could occur.

 

I keep hearing people talk about profiles for Epson. What are profiles? From what I read on these boards I believe profiles sounds like settings for printing, like modifying colors (more green than red, etc). Are profiles difficult to do?

 

Thanks everyone for the responses :)

[leigh_ball]

I wanted to add that the problem I have had with all the printers I have owned is that they colors I see on my monitor are not the colors I get in the print. I would assume that this is a common problem with all printers? Is there a way to get around that?

 

Thanks again :)

[jim_doty]

Leigh:

<p>

To answer you most recent post first, if the monitor and prints aren't really close, you have a color management problem. Your monitor may be off in the way it shows color. The software may not be using the right profiles for the printer, paper, and inks you are usisng. Or both. Monitor and prints SHOULD match.

<p>

Professional photographers using Epson 2200 printers have sold untold numbers of prints to lots of satisfied customers. You won't go wrong in buying a current or future Epson printer provided it is one of their archival models.

<p>

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Leigh, profiles are direction sets that tell the printer how to apply ink for your print with a given paper and ink combination. Many paper manufacturers post ICC profiles for their papers and common printers (most Epsons-another reason to buy an Epson) on their websites. You apply the profile in the "print with preview" box of photoshop. You can make your own with a scanner and a program like Monaco EZ color-often a necessity if you're not using manufacturers ink, or have them custom made by a third party like Cathy's Profiles (she's on the web)