Usa4624 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 261 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2772 times:
I have a PhotoSmart 1000 printer that is starting to put 'streaks' in the same place on all of my photos. I'm thinking that the printer is defective, as I have this problem regardless of the paper I use, and new ink cartridges (and cleaning) have not helped.
So, I am thinking of getting a new Photo Printer. I think that all of the HP series printers will all have this same problem eventually, so I am looking at another brand, but have no idea what to look for.
My question is this: If you were to buy a new photo printer now (for less that $500), what would it be and why?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2756 times:
Certainly the Epson photoprinters produce superb quality - I'm satisfied with them ... Canon also produce good results, though Canon media is a bit more expensive and has a smaller range. I beleive Canon printers are faster than their Epson equivalents, but most would say Epson has a slight quality advantage.
In terms of durability, I'm not sure how tough any consumer level printer is going to be - when you look at the technology, its a small miracle they work at all!
I make my printers work pretty hard, but tend to upgrade every 12-18 months, so I've never run an Epson into the ground, though I did have one fail on me which proved uneconomical to repair.
Oxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2715 times:
Depends on whether you want to your photos to be long lasting or not. If you don't need that function, then the Epson Stylus photos and Canon S900/s9000 or even the newest HPs ( e.g. Deskjet 5550) are alright. All of them produces prints with near invisible dots.
However, Canon's and HP generally likes to print the images with a hight contrast. In this way, the prints looks sharper and livelier. But if you are picky and want the prints to be closer to the original, then choose the Epson.
If you want your prints to be long lasting, then I would recommend the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 (called the 2100 in Asia). The quality and resolution is great. It also has lots of specail functions like printing on cardboards up to 1.3 mm thick, Roll paper, Roll paper auto cutter, CD printing ( i think this function is not available in USA).
However, there are a few drawbacks. First of all, it can't print VERY VERY smooth glossy prints like the ones produced by Epson Stylus Photo 810 on Premium Glossy Photo Paper. Because the 2200 uses pigment ink (rather than the normal dye), the ink does penetrate deep into the paper. Instead, it rests on the surface of the paper. So when printing on the Premiun Glossy Photo Paper, you can see that the areas which is laden with ink are slightly elevated and has a different gloss as the paper itself.
This problem is also faced when using the semigloss paper. However, there is no such problem when printing on matte paper or the 'Glossy paper- Photo Weight' (because this paper is glossy but not quite smooth).
Also bear in mind that the ink cost is quite high because pigmented ink droplets produces a smaller dot on paper than a same sized dye droplet. Also, with 7 individual ink catridges, you have to be prepared to spend a lot of time changing the catridges.
This Printer cost about $699, but I really think its quality is worth the money.
737heavy From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 601 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2708 times:
I have the Epson Stylus Photo 895 and its a great printer for the price. I considered the 2200 but at £520 or £130 for the 895 it wasn't a difficult choice. I'd love to see some of my work at A3 but I can't justify the cost at the moment. A4 is good enough for now.
Best advice I can give is to make sure you use the photo paper made by the printer manufacturer, e.g. use Epson paper on Epson printers. The high quality photo glossy stuff is well worth it.
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 774 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
I noticed the same thing about the variable gloss on the High Gloss Premium Paper. Another thing I noticed is that if you put the print under glass soon after printing, the glass will fog according to the ink underneath it! I have a piece of glass with an image of a 757 on it!
Do you know of any coatings that can be applied to produce an even gloss?
Prints on the matte paper can’t produce the vivid colors that are on many airliners. However, I printed a landscape photo and it looks great on matte paper.
Oxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
I have never tried any coatings before, but I read an article in http://www.inkjetart.com regarding how to coat C80 prints to produce Glossy photos. You can have a look : http://www.inkjetart.com/c80/better_blacks.html
They recommended the Krylon's "Low Odor Clear Gloss" finish #7110. Since the C80 is also a Pigment printer, this method might work for the 2200 as will (i think).
As for the glass problem you encountered, I have never experienced that problem. When i frame my printouts, I also put a piece of cardboard border between the glass and the paper, so that the glass doesn't even touch the paper. However, I read in the Instructions for the Semigloss photo paper and it recommends people to let the print to dry for at least 24 hours before doing framing it. So what paper are you using ?
Hope that helps,
P.S. I also forgot to mention that with the 2200, not all third party paper types can be used because the ink formula is very different from the normal dye printers. So this again increases cost.
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 774 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2666 times:
Thanks James. I also use the cardboard matte in the frame normally; however, for some reason I did not that one time. I simply put it in the frame shortly after printing. The print was made on the Pro Semi-gloss Photo Paper.
I made some more prints last night... in a word - stunning! For anyone who wants true photo quality you must check out this printer. The output beats my dye-sublimation printer – and that is a tall order.
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 774 posts, RR: 15 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
I have an Alps dye-sub. Six years ago it was the only affordable game in town if you wanted anything that approached photo quality. The biggest problem with it is the cost and availability of the ribbons. The ribbons are very hard to come by now. Another problem with the Alps is banding. It either overlaps or leaves gaps on passes. This can be repaired, but the price is too high.
If you look at the dye-sub output under a loop it still looks better than the Epson 2200 output because it is a continuous color tone (not dots). But back off and the Epson prints look brighter and more like a photo than the dye-sub output. Of course, this is only the case when the premium photo paper is used.
There are some newer dye-sub printers out there that are affordable (less than $1000) but none can do large format like the Epson. Also, you can’t print on matte paper or other media with a dye-sub.