Some of you may have seen this one coming.

Now that I've got this wonderful new digital camera, I'm itching for a really good photo printer. I am going to take my time and carefully research this over the next few months, so there's no rush. But I'd like the opinions of the people on this BBS.

Our current 720-dpi Epson 440 is nice. It was very inexpensive, its ink cartridges are easy to find, and it's been reasonably reliable. When printing on photo paper at its finest setting, it delivers rich, solid colors and the results are very film-like.

Except for the 720-dpi part, that is. When your eyes get closer than about 12 inches from the page, you can see the stochastic dither pattern of the dots. I just printed a pathological worst-case-scenario picture of my mother-in-law standing in the snow with a white dog. The darkly-colored portions of the photo looked fine, but the areas of subtle shadows on the surface of the snow were terrible, with widely spaced and very obvious dither-dots.

So now I'm wondering "what's out there" in printing technology now. Last I looked at color printers (years ago), the closest you could get to "no dots" was teribly expensive dye-sublimation processes which delivered true gradations of color.

So who can give me advice in this area? I'm looking for something that will:

- Print on 8.5x11" paper. I want to print large portrait-sized photos, not tiny little things for a photo album. This rules out those consumer-targeted "photo printers" that plug straight into your camera.

- Print without showing noticeable dot patterns.

- Deliver solid, film-like color on glossy photo paper.

- Have a reasonable (not necessarily "cheap") cost-per-page.

- Have reasonably color-fast inks. In other words, I don't want the reds to fade into pink after a year. (The epson 440 seems to be pretty good about this.)

- Be priced in the consumer range, not the graphic-arts-house range.

Anyone have any advice? My next stop is www.dpreview.com to see if they review photo printers as well as cameras.

I have a cannon S630 printer which I have been using with my olympus c2100uz. Using cannon photo paper pro, I have been able to produce borderless 4 x 6 prints that look just as good as ones from the photo lab. I also have been producing 8 x 10 prints on photo glossy paper that turn out great.

People are always suprised that I produced the 8 x 10s on a printer. Ive been using cannon paper ($.50 a sheet) but recently bought Kodak paper at $.20 a sheet.

Printing speed for photos is good, and text printing is extremely fast - I think its faster than anything on the market right now. And its only $200.

As far as printing software goes, download qimage - its very easy to use and has some easy to use tools - like white balance adjustments.

Try Epson's Photo line of printers. They use 6 inks instead of 4 and have incredibly small dot sizes so that the dots are pretty much invisible to the naked eye no matter how close you look at the prints. They run $1200 - $130. The Epson Photo 785 got a good review at Imaging Resource at www.imaging-resource.com. The prints are supposed to last 25 years before fading. Even the cheapest one can print "borderless prints." Check it out.

Tony - I have an Epson 1200 for sale. It's less than a year old and in great condition. I've recently upgraded to the Epson Stylus Pro 5500 for my wife's art business. The 1200 is great for printing photographs and will print sizes up to 13"x44" panoramas. It's 6 color and 1400 x 720 dpi. There is a review at ." target="_blank">http://www.thetechzone.com/reviews/printers/epson/photo_1200[/url].

Includes all original manuals, software, cable and 2 sets of brand new ink cartridges (2 black and 2 color).

Cost $275

I happened to end up chatting with HP's "architect" for their imaging and printing systems. I learned a bunch of neat stuff.

- Use HP paper with an HP printer. Use Epson paper with an Epson printer. Tell your print software the exact model of paper that you're using. They measure the daylights out of their own papers and carefully tune the ink they send to look beautiful for their own paper. They treat other paper as "generic" and do something that won't totally suck.

- Print in "best" quality mode rather than "normal" or "draft". It will take longer, potentially much longer, but the printer has the chance to deposit more ink, giving you deeper blacks and more saturated colors.

- Modern inkjet paper is a marvel of technology. They use superabsorbent materials on the paper coating to suck up the ink and keep it from spreading. This allows them to deposit much more ink than they might be able to do on traditional paper, where it would smear out and soak through.

That said, I have an HP DeskJet 970Cxi. It's got a nifty two-sided printing feature, and runs amazingly fast in "draft" mode, but it's photo-quality prints aren't as good as the "photo" printers. If you want to maximize photo quality, the six-ink Epsons are probably the way to go. If you want a printer that's also going to be cranking out code or other generic stuff, and then occasionally does high quality prints, I'm quite happy with my printer.

I have much experience with the Epson Stylus Photo line of printers. I have a 700, my neighbour has a 750, my friend uses a 1200 and we have a 1270 here at work. They all print fantastically.

Select the proper paper and quality settings and off you go. I believe the 12xx models are the only ones that give you tabloid and longer printing options.

Go and check out the reviews... Epson's older inks have had some problems but iirc they have a new formulation now that will last.

If you want any more details feel free to email me or to post here. I love these printers and I also can't wait to upgrade my Epson camera to a Canon S300!!!

I'll keep this short and simple. I've had numerous Epson and HP printers over the years... and I'll now only buy HP. The difference between the models i used was staggering, but i haven't used an Epson in 2 years, so who knows what's changed. I've never had a problem with my HP 925c Deskjet, which is an older model nowadays, and it does all you required and more. Every Epson i've had either jammed all the time, pulled multiple pages, or just gave me a general pain in the ass. HP's build quality just seems so much higher than Epson's... and the ones i've used have printed MUCH faster. I'd say go to a CompUSA or the like where there is a huge row of printers and have a look for yourself. My recommendation is for HP though. YMMV.

I have done quite a bit of research into this, and here's what I came up with:

1. Buy Epson! - Everybody swears by their photo printers
2. You get what you pay for - There aren't too many big differences between the 780, 820, and 890, other than price. However, people say the 890 is much more sturdy and well-built than the 780, and is worth the price difference.
3. If you want to do large prints, nothing beats the 1280, which can do up to 13x44 panoramas.

Overall, I think it comes down to the 890 or the 1280. Unless money is really tight, I'd say go for the 1280. It's worth the extra money.

If you're really lucky, you can find a 1270 used or on clearance, although it's pretty rare these days. There's pretty much no difference between the 1270 and 1280.

Thanks for all the advice so far, everyone, keep it coming.

As a follow up to some of the things I've seen in this thread so far, I want clarify a couple of points:

- Speed is not an issue for this printer, and neither is text/draftmode printing. For text, I have a perfectly good laser printer. For quick non-photo color work, I have the existing Epson 440. The only thing I will ever print with this printer is high-quality glossy photos using special paper.

- I know about using only the correct paper for the job, and about using only ink carts from the manufacturer. I know about how to set the printer driver properly for the proper paper and quality type.

I have had only one problem with our current Epson, which is that the ink, when left "sitting" for a long time without printing, clogs up in the nozzles. It's built-in cleaning routines were inadequate for unclogging the nozzles. I had to do some web research to find some homebrew remedies for unclogging the nozzles (which eventually did work, thank goodness).

The reason the clogging happens is because the Epson does not replace the nozzles along with the ink cartridges. The nozzles are a permanent part of the printer. If they clog and you can't get them unclogged, it's over $100.00 for replacements.

So that nozzle thing might be another factor in my purchasing decision. Anyone have information on that?

Oh, and www.dpreview.com doesn't seem to do printer reviews. Too bad!

I also can't wait to upgrade my Epson camera to a Canon S300!

As I discovered, you want the S110, not the S300.

I just spoke with Tony, and he says he wants a printer that will print only photos. In that case, I would recommend the cannon s800 or the soon to be released s900. Keep in mind that the paper you choose to print on will make a big difference in print quality. If the paper doesnt soak up enough ink, it will bead up and look very bad.

There are some reviews to be found here: http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Print_quality/Quality-Conclusions/quality-conclusions.html

Sean

We've been using HP inkjets at work for a few months now and I have been so impressed with the build and image quality that I have recently replaced my old Canon BJC4550 at home with an HP Deskjet 1220C. This goes up to 13" x 19" so I can print out my A3 CAD drawings. As for running costs - well we haven't been using them for long enough yet to do any calculations so I can't comment. I got an HP 840C for my Mum, recommended a 959C to my sister and bought my girlfriend a 930C. My sister got hers for exactly the same thing you want yours for - that's printing photographs and she's extremely pleased with it. The HPs seem nice and quiet too. Much quieter than the Canons we've had. I've heard good things about Epson photo print quality too. Personally I'd do as you said and look up some Printer group tests and reviews. That's what I usually do when I'm in the market for something. Good luck, I hope you get a printer you're happy with.

Tony... you seem to be a very smart chap... please sell me on the S110.

The only real reason I want the S300 so bad is for the 3x optical zoom. I previously thought that I needed the get the S300 in order to be able to get a waterproof case but I have since learned that they make those for the S110 as well.

Come on... tip the scale!

P.S. My current Epson has 3X and that's the main reason I don't want to go with anything less.

Tony... you seem to be a very smart chap... please sell me on the S110. The only real reason I want the S300 so bad is for the 3x optical zoom.

Correct, the primary advantage of the 300 is the better optical zoom. Functionally, there are no other differences I can see other than that the 300 lays out its buttons a bit differently. But the software seems to be almost identical and produces the same results with the same feature set.

My choice for the 110 over the 300 is size. The 110 is significantly smaller than the 300 (and the 300 is already pretty darn small). The reason I wanted a 300/110 is that the camera was so small, I knew I would be more likely to be carrying it when a photo opportunity arose. Since the 3x zoom was not high on my list of priorities, but size was at the top of the list, I chose the 110. When Loren showed me his 300, I was glad I made the choice.

My feeling is that this camera is for quick/easy snaps, not for serious photography. It doesn't even have a manual focus. If the zoom were important to me, then other professional features such as manual focus would also be important to me. They're not, hence my preference for the 110.

Yes, according to the review you just linked, that Canon 800 is a pretty great printer. However, that review is over a year old. Anyone else have more recent comparison reviews like that one?

Odd, I could have sworn it said January 2001 when I first looked. Now it says November.

Damn temporal vortices. Gotta get that fixed.

Thanks for all the advice so far, everyone, keep it coming.

Tony, you don't say how much money you're willing to spend. But have you considered spending more up front and save money in the long run?

If your budget can stand a $1200 hit, you can shop around and find an HP-4550N color laser printer that will (IMHO) produce better quality pictures at a fraction of the cost per picture of an ink jet printer. (You'll be paying 7--10 cents per page instead of 50--75 cents per page.)

If you are saving 60 cents on each print, it doesn't take long to recoup the additional up-front cost of the printer. I believe (with no research to support it, don't even know for sure why I think this) that laser generated prints will have a longer life than ink-jet prints; certainly they won't run and smear if moistened.

Caveat: it has been some time now since I actually researched the cost of prints made on a color ink-jet. If the cost has come down as dramatically as the cost of prints made on a color laser printer, then I am talking through my hat and somebody should tell me so.

tanstaafl.

Well... Since I happen to work for a Printer supply company (refills, re-mans, etc), I'm not going to get into the buy the Manufacturer's inks only..

But, I will comment on reliablity. HP. It's the only way to go for inkjet. Epson prints SLIGHTLY nicer in most models, but Lord, the number of complaints and problems that come from those things is HUGE. Our QA department hates them with a passion. Canons tend to be pretty good in terms of lasting, but HP's are built like tanks. The Standard HP cartridge is pretty well over-engineered. Not to mention that you get a significant amount more ink out of them.

I've been pretty happy with the quality of my prints from a Deskjet 990 onto photo paper, but for really major jobs, I go to the lab.... That's where the REALLY nice printers are (mega $$$$$).

Here's some printer reviews:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/printers.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINTINDEX.HTM

For Epson info, check the forum at dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1013

So are you saying that HP's ink cartidges are more reliable than Epson's ink cartridges or that the printers themselves are better?

If your budget can stand a $1200 hit, you can shop around and find an HP-4550N color laser printer that will (IMHO) produce better quality pictures at a fraction of the cost per picture of an ink jet printer.

One of my original requirements was:

- Deliver solid, film-like color on glossy photo paper.

I was under the impression that a laser printer could not do this. Pages that come out of a laser printer, as far as I know, always look like laser prints rather than photographs printed on photographic film.

I'm willing to be sold, however. If anyone can convince me otherwise, I will listen. Who's got some evidence in this area?

So are you saying that HP's ink cartidges are more reliable than Epson's ink cartridges or that the printers themselves are better?


Yes.

99% of an inkjet printer is the printhead. HP replaces that printhead with every cartridge (which we take advantage of, in re-mans and refills). The Printer itself is just a carrier with a little logic added.

From a reliability standpoint, QA and customer service hears very little from HP users, but the epson's are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we sell far more HP's than Epson. Based on my talks with some of our customers and suppliers, It's pretty much that way across the board.

I hate to say it. I really do, as I really don't like HP at all as a company. But it is the better product, IMHO. Better print quality (which is really marginal at the higher end printers) doesn't help much when you can't print.

Price wise, I think ALL of the OEM's rip the customer pretty bad (but what did you expect me to say?) At least with HP, you're getting a new printhead AND ink, instead of just ink... But remember, ALL of the OEM manufacturers give away their printers to make money on the ink... It's the old Razor/blades scheme.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I can also attest to the disadvantage of the Epson print head being separate from the ink cartridge. I was able to work around my problem without an expensive printhead replacement, but others have not been so lucky. And I used up the equivalent of an entire black ink cartridge in my many attempts at clearing the clog.

I'm looking more closely at the Canon S-800 at this time. Its print head is not replaced with the ink cartridges, however it is easily removable so it would be easier to service and replace than the Epson printers.

Unfortunately, when buy a Inkjet HP, you pretty much sign into buying a new printer with each new cartridge. If you buy a black and white, and color cartridges, you almost pay for a new printer.

RE: Canon: Its print head is not replaced with the ink cartridges, however it is easily removable so it would be easier to service and replace than the Epson printers.


Yup. My only qualification on Canon is that I've found their ink dries out a bit too quick from a storage state. I BELIEVE this has been corrected in the more recent models, but that's about it...

The print head is $85.00 and if there is a problem during the warranty period, they will send you a new one in the mail. Much easier than mailing it in for service.

Unfortunately, when buy a Inkjet HP, you pretty much sign into buying a new printer with each new cartridge. If you buy a black and white, and color cartridges, you almost pay for a new printer.



Exactly. That's why it pays to buy remans and refill kits. They work best with the HP's simply because of the printhead attached. It's easier for us to make refills and refill kits for Epson and Canon, but those printers STILL have more problems.

With the HP, 90% of the time, we have to clean the cart very well, redo the seals and it's good to go. The Average HP cart can be refilled more than 10 times (and considering they have more ink than the epsons or canon, that's alot of printing) before noticable degradation occurs.

We do a good business ($250 mil a year according to the last reports when we were public... Privately owned now, so I can't comment on the current business).

There is always going to be a cost associated with printing... You are using a consumable. Personally, I've found it cheaper to buy the HP than the others (even when I'm not 'helping' QA by testing.. ). And while I am biased (I'm not in sales/marketing, thank god, tho.), Our refills and reman carts are on the same quality level as the OEMs. Admittedly, there are quite a few fly by night refill companies.... Notably, they are the ONE ink fills all. They also tend to do a significant amount of TV and spam advertising... I've always enjoyed getting the spam for lower cost inkjets... It's not quite as much fun as the phone call's however.

We've got a pretty big staff of chemists just working on the formulations of the different inks. Each Cart is different, and to get the right color match is often a very difficult job. In fact, one of our larger problems is getting current cartridges out there because of the changing formulations. It can take quite a while to work an new ink through production and QA.



[censored].... That got side tracked in a hurry. Sorry.

Which printer supply company do you work for? How well do your refill inks hold up vs. the 25 yr inks the oems are providing?

Also, are the ink colors and substance perfectly matched to the stock inks?

Calvin

The funny thing with the printer business they sell the printer below cost and attempt to make the money back by selling printer ink cartridges. Whether it has a print head in it or not, that's what they do. That's why the printer companies are so upset by aftermarket print cartridges. The newer Epsons go so far as to include copy protection in the cartridge so if you insert an alien cartridge it will not accept it.

Calvin