Photo Printer
Tom Carwie
their pluses and minuses. I have narrowed it down to the Epson Photo
700, the HP Photosmart and the Alps MD1300 or for a little more the Alps
Md 5000. Does anyone have any input on these printers. All I want to do
is take pictures with my Dig. camera and print out the ones I like. Also
it would be nice if they didn't fade to quickly.
Tom Carwie
Jerry
of them. I first bought an Alps 1000 (non-dye sub) and replaced it with the
HP PhotoSmart. The Alps was plagued with banding and fine lines on some 8 x
10's. I even replaced it once through Alps technical support. But, even
when there was not banding or lining, the color quality was not as good as
with my new HP PhotoSmart. The HP is big, rugged, reliable, reasonably
quiet, and does a fine job on color and B&W. HP promises print durability,
whereas Epson makes no claims. The HP is $199 now anywhere. Probably going
to be replaced by a new model, but I don't see how it can be much improved.
If the Alps 1300 doesn't band or line, the dye sub process may produce
better prints, but, again, they don't need to be better than the HP PS. The
HP prints will water spot, as will most inkjets, I suspect, whereas my Alps
1000 would not.
The Epson 700 has a big following in this group, but I've read of nozzle
head clogging. The nozzles of the HP are in the cartridge, so you get new
ones when you get a new cartridge. [This is playing like a record.] Be
prepared for a re-play from all the Epson folks, too.
The good thing is that you probably can't make a mistake if you buy any of
the ones you mention, except the Alps, if it bands like mine did.
Happy research, Jerry
spam"@sover.net tharding
I too have the photosmart. I love it. Great prints and awsome price. The
Epsons have a banding problem, and need the heads cleaned almost everytime you
print something (unless you do printing all the time so they stay cleared).
The HP Photosmart does 60-80 full color 8x10's (That seems the average, or
about 320 4x6 prints) on a set of carts. Inks are fade resist, I think the
Epsons would be much more expensive for ink, plus it will fade (and it cost
alot more for the printer). As everyone can see from my past posts, I am very
happy with the Photosmart. I just can't say enough about it.
David Hewitt
the results on printing from my Olympus 900Z excellent. I think the 900z is
sold as 400Z in the US. Also, I find the cost of the ink reasonable.
Regards
David H
Tom Carwie wrote in message <36DCD594...@acan.net>...
Dr Peter Johnson
and resolution is significantly better than the other printers
mentioned. There are 5 colours, which gives perfect
colour gradations and to resolve the problems with buying lots of ink
cartridges you can
refill the carts with cheap third party inks.
Nai-Chi Lee
tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
>I too have the photosmart. I love it. Great prints and awsome price. The
>Epsons have a banding problem, and need the heads cleaned almost everytime you
>print something (unless you do printing all the time so they stay cleared).
I've been hearing a lot of those alleged problems with Epson printers.
However, my personal experience with the Photo 700 is mostly trouble-free.
The only time I observed banding is when I have a head clog, and the only
time I have head clog is when I tried cheap replacement ink. Other people
have also indicated that head clogging may be due to improper power-off
(switching off main supply instead of pressing the on/off button on the
printer).
>The HP Photosmart does 60-80 full color 8x10's (That seems the average, or
>about 320 4x6 prints) on a set of carts. Inks are fade resist, I think the
>Epsons would be much more expensive for ink, plus it will fade (and it cost
>alot more for the printer).
Both printers are selling at $200 right now, so price is not even a factor.
The more important issue is the per-page cost for each photo printed.
I only get about thirty 8x10 photos from each Epson color cartridge. But
then again, the HP cartridges cost more than twice as much, so the ink cost
per page is probably about even. I have done a cost-analysis in an earlier
post, where the cost per page (ink + paper) worked out to be $0.90 - $1.00
for my Epson. I love to see a cost analysis for the HP Photosmart printer,
instead of yet another hear-say.
As to HP's claim that the Photosmart prints fade slower than others, I'll
also like to see some independent verifications on this issue.
>As everyone can see from my past posts, I am very
>happy with the Photosmart. I just can't say enough about it.
I'm very happy with my Epson photo 700. Of course, I have no problem
switching to an HP if someone can convince me that it can really deliver:
(1) higher resolution,
(2) faster speed,
(3) better skin tones,
(2) lower per-page cost, and
(3) longer shelf life for prints.
But so far, those typical "Epson SUX! Buy HP!" messages we see here everyday
only make me more skeptical than ever.
--
Nai-Chi
spam"@sover.net tharding
>
>I'm very happy with my Epson photo 700. Of course, I have no problem
>switching to an HP if someone can convince me that it can really deliver:
>(1) higher resolution,
>(2) faster speed,
>(3) better skin tones,
>(2) lower per-page cost, and
>(3) longer shelf life for prints.
The HP is a 6 color printer. The carts retail for $40 each and there are 2.
They are available tho for $20 each, so $40 gives you a new set. Skin tones
are amaxingly realistic as well as all the other colors. It is not a high res
printer. #00 dpi, but that is not an issue since real photos are only about
300 dpi also. There is really no direct comparison. Epson has been pushing the
res issue while HP has been consuntrating on print quality. High res sounds
better but is not always better. The following is a breakdown of my cost per a
page from an earlier post:
The major drawback for digital photography is the life of the prints. Most
inkjet printers were not really designed for photos. Yes, they print them real
nice, but the inks will fade and colors will be incorrect after awhile. They
just dont last like real photos. For this reason I got the HP Photosmart
printer. It used to be $500, but is $199 at Staples now. There is a rumor of a
new model coming, that would explain the price drop. Plus, it has been around
awhile. Now, the thing everyone gets upset about is the resolution. It is a
300x300 dpi printer. But all it does in photos, and it does them well. The
inks are made to last like a real photo, and the print are simply stunning. It
prints upto 8x10s and as small as 4x6 snapshots. It comes with MS Picture it,
IMO, one of the BEST and easiest to use for printing photos and doing some
real nice photo effects. The one thing to remember is, the resolution is not
an issue with this printer. I had an Epson and have had a HP 722c, they both
do real nice photos on glossy paper, but the prints will not last. Very
important. Next is the camera. You will want a good megapixel camera, simply
because they take great pics. I got the HP C30. $399 and worth every penny.
So, for $600, you get it all. Plus the pics will last. Now, the cost per a
pic.
Using the HP Premium glossy paper ($10 for 15 sheets), you get 4 snapshots per
a page ($.165 each), plus ink. The ink is rated for 60-80 full 8x10 sheets per
a set. Taking the middle number (70), that would be 280 snapshots per a set.
At $20 a cart ($40 a set) we come to $.14 a pic. Now that is about $.30 a pic
total. If we look at traditional photos, I thkn the average for a 36 pic roll
is about $4.00 a roll, plus figure about $8 to develope. That comes to about
$.33 a pic.
The ink price was based on the cheapest I could find on the net. Paying the
regular price per a set would make the price higher per a print.
Now, since we see there is really no difference in price, and possibly the
digital route is a little more expensive the only other area is fun and
convienience. I love doing photo effects in Picture It, and then printing them
to take to work. The output is really nice. No waiting, driving to the
developing place, and I can do as many copys as I want of a picture without
the hassle of taking them in for reprints. Plus, for about $50, you can get a
flatbed scanner, and scan your old prints and make all your own reprints from
older pics.
Bottom line, digital is fun and you can make some really funny and creative
family pics. I love it.
Nai-Chi Lee
>They are available tho for $20 each, so $40 gives you a new set.
Thank you for providing this information. I made a mistake in my previous
assumpution. I assumed that a _complete_ set of HP color cartridge costs
only $25 (the lowest price I found on shopper.net). So I claimed that:
"The HP cartridges cost more than twice as much [compared to the Epson"
(since the lowest price for Epson color cartridge is $11).
But now I know that you need to pay for two HP cartridges in each set.
Therefore, I should amend my statement to:
"The HP cartridges cost FOUR TIMES as much compared to the Epson"
>Skin tones
>are amaxingly realistic as well as all the other colors. It is not a high res
>printer. #00 dpi, but that is not an issue since real photos are only about
>300 dpi also.
Here is another commonly quoted misinformation. The resolution of a "real"
photo is much higher than 300dpi. I don't know the equivalent resolution,
but it is probably higher than 1000dpi. Don't believe me? Just take a 3x
magnifying glass and examine a "real" photo. Do you see any dots? Do the
same to your 300dpi printer output and tell me what do you see.
Of course, people always come back with "You can't see the difference
with your naked eyes, so what's the big deal!?" Fine, but don't go
around spreading the misinformation that "real" photos are only 300dpi.
> Now, the cost per a pic.
>
>Using the HP Premium glossy paper ($10 for 15 sheets), you get 4 snapshots per
>a page ($.165 each), plus ink. The ink is rated for 60-80 full 8x10 sheets per
>a set. Taking the middle number (70), that would be 280 snapshots per a set.
>At $20 a cart ($40 a set) we come to $.14 a pic. Now that is about $.30 a pic
Thank you for providing the cost analysis. As I mentioned before, the best
price on HP cartridges I can find is $25 each, but I'll assume that you can
indeed find those at $20 each. So based on your best numbers, each 8x10
photos costs $1.20 to print on your Photosmart printer.
Now here is my cost analysis for the Epson 700. To be fair, I'll also
use the best prices I can find on shopper.com in my calculation, and
ignore shipping and handling just like you did.
The following is what I'll need to produce 120 pages of 8x10 photos:
4 color cartridges ($11 each) $44
1 black cartridge ($12 each) $12
120 letter-size photo paper ($5.95 for 20) $35.70
The total cost comes to $91.70 for 120 pages, or $0.76 per pages on my
Epson 700. Comapare that to $1.20 per page on your HP Photosmrt, it
means the operating cost (per page) for the Photosmart is 57% higher
than that for the Epson 700!
Finally, I hope this will put to rest the misinformation that the Epson
700 costs more per page than the HP Photosmart.
--
Nai-Chi
spam"@sover.net tharding
>
>Here is another commonly quoted misinformation. The resolution of a "real"
>photo is much higher than 300dpi. I don't know the equivalent resolution,
>but it is probably higher than 1000dpi. Don't believe me? Just take a 3x
>magnifying glass and examine a "real" photo. Do you see any dots? Do the
>same to your 300dpi printer output and tell me what do you see.
>
>Of course, people always come back with "You can't see the difference
>with your naked eyes, so what's the big deal!?" Fine, but don't go
>around spreading the misinformation that "real" photos are only 300dpi.
Wrong. Real pics are not high res. They are a different format altogether. You
do not see dots because it is not formed from dots like inkjet is. Just
because Epson keeps coming out with higher and higher res pics, does not mean
it is better. Print out a 300dpi picture on several different printers, and
then print out 1400x1200 dpi on your EPson, and you will really see no
difference in detail. (same size picture).
>
>> Now, the cost per a pic.
>>
>>Using the HP Premium glossy paper ($10 for 15 sheets), you get 4 snapshots per
>>a page ($.165 each), plus ink. The ink is rated for 60-80 full 8x10 sheets per
>>a set. Taking the middle number (70), that would be 280 snapshots per a set.
>>At $20 a cart ($40 a set) we come to $.14 a pic. Now that is about $.30 a pic
>
>Thank you for providing the cost analysis. As I mentioned before, the best
>price on HP cartridges I can find is $25 each, but I'll assume that you can
>indeed find those at $20 each. So based on your best numbers, each 8x10
>photos costs $1.20 to print on your Photosmart printer.
>
>Now here is my cost analysis for the Epson 700. To be fair, I'll also
>use the best prices I can find on shopper.com in my calculation, and
>ignore shipping and handling just like you did.
>
>The following is what I'll need to produce 120 pages of 8x10 photos:
>
> 4 color cartridges ($11 each) $44
> 1 black cartridge ($12 each) $12
> 120 letter-size photo paper ($5.95 for 20) $35.70
>
>The total cost comes to $91.70 for 120 pages, or $0.76 per pages on my
>Epson 700. Comapare that to $1.20 per page on your HP Photosmrt, it
>means the operating cost (per page) for the Photosmart is 57% higher
>than that for the Epson 700!
Cool, but dont forget to count the ink it will take to unclogg the nozzles in
the Epson. :) I had one, I know how they are, that is why I got rid of it.
>
>Finally, I hope this will put to rest the misinformation that the Epson
>700 costs more per page than the HP Photosmart
And even after all this, wait a year or soo until the Epson prints fade, and
then look at a Photosmart photo. Then you will see the biggest difference..
gard...@health.missouri.edu
which is lacking is a direct comparison. I have recently completed such a
comparison. I scanned a Fuji velvia slide at 2400 dpi on an HP photosmart
scanner. I then printed the unaltered scan as an 8 x 10 print on both an
Epson photo 700 and HP photosmart printer. I used the same computer and same
program to print the slide. Each printer was set for its best output. I
used the same high res, glossy photo paper for each print. Both prints were
very good. Although the Epson printer is rated at a higher resolution, there
was no discernible difference in sharpness between the two prints. The
colors were noticeable more saturated on the HP print, an looked more like
the original slide and the scanned image. I showed both prints to several
serious amateur photographers, not telling them how they were made. Each
photographer felt the HP photosmart print was the better print. All were
very surprised to find out that both prints were from ink jet printers rather
than my darkroom. I returned the Epson photo 700 and have kept the HP
Photosmart. I is of interested that 4 of 7 photographers who I showed the
prints to have bought photo printers and scanners. Each has bought the HP
Photosmart printer after seeing both prints I have nothing against the
Epson printer and felt its out put was excellent. It has the advantage of be
usable for both general printing and photo printing while the HP is only good
for photo printing. But for my purposes, printing photo only, the output
from the HP was visibly better.
In article <7bkifu$bmv$1...@philabs-gw.philabs.research.philips.com>,
n...@philabs.research.philips.com (Nai-Chi Lee) wrote:
> In article <zheD2.29$Mc....@news15.ispnews.com>,
> tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
> >I too have the photosmart. I love it. Great prints and awsome price. The
SNIP
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Chien
> Photosmart. I is of interested that 4 of 7 photographers who I showed the
> prints to have bought photo printers and scanners. Each has bought the HP
> Photosmart printer after seeing both prints I have nothing against the
The underlying reason the HP Photosmart printer has prints that are liked by
people is in the saturation and contrast settings built-into the software
itself. Similar to the trend in photography where print film and prints that are
often highly saturated with high contrast find favor with most people, so has HP
'adjusted' their printers to do the same.
Often, you will note that when looking at high contrast, high saturation photos,
you tend to reduce the importance of sharp, high-resolution detail in favor of
glossy color. This is natural as the human eye detects differences in color far
easier than detail, and pays attention to contrast changes more than detail in
still objects. (one of those fight-or-die survival things; for motion, you'll
note that the eye immediately focuses on moving objects and ignores still
objects)
This isn't to say that one of the printers is 'better' than the other. Both will
get you good prints, and just like the difference between the highly saturated
Fuji Velvia slide film and the lower contrast Kodak VPS wedding film, there is
that difference between the Epson and HP printers.
However, you can manually adjust the photo to match the orignal colors
'accurately' if need be by pre-processing through Photoshop, etc. and thus make a
HP printer look 'less contrasty' and the Epson printer more so.
Resolution-wise, I personally notice the difference, but then again, that's me
looking hard and printing pictures with high detail. People (ie. skin) tends to
be the lowest detail object of any photo. Why? Skin is mostly a monotone with a
very limited range of colors. Just download any skin picture off the internet
and measure the color (RGB) across any evenly lit portion to see. (And luckily,
this makes machine detection of people in photos easier because you just have to
find that big blob of even color...) Thus, you won't notice much difference
between the two printing pictures of people.
Also, landscapes and such with a high amount of 'random' detail -- eg. grass,
leaves, trees, sandy landscapes, hide the apparent resolution of these printers
through the randomness of the objects. Quite unlike a print of a detailed
topographical map where every detail must be in the exact spot, a dot, just a
little off, on a green leaf is not something caught by the eye because it seems
as if that was what nature had created -- since there is no 'reference' of a
perfect leaf, we allow such 'errors' to seem natural to us.
In any case, there's the point of cost, avail. of media types, etc. E.G. there
are NeoPrint like stickers available for Epson printers if that is something
you'd like to do. Canvas papers, etc.
In the end, if you don't 'tweak' much and just want a nice printout, the HP will
probably be more to your liking given the default 'over' saturation of prints
(ala Velvia). If you want high detail pictures (eg. maps, still photography of
still life, etc.), the Epson Photo 700/EX. (or even better, wait for the new
Photo printers already out in Japan and Europe to arrive in the US; even smaller
dots). If you do like to 'tweak', the Epson printer will have the benefit of
allowing you to print 'highly' saturated photos after adjustment, and provide
high detail/resolution prints.
david =)
and if you want 100% just-like-a-real-photo print with no dots at all, choose the
Alps 1300 ($350ish) or 5000 ($500ish) sub-dye printers. Nothing in the home
market <$500 is better than these in superior photo output.
Nai-Chi Lee
<gard...@health.missouri.edu> wrote:
>I have been reading the Epson vs HP debate here for some time. One thing
>which is lacking is a direct comparison. I have recently completed such a
>comparison. I scanned a Fuji velvia slide at 2400 dpi on an HP photosmart
>scanner. I then printed the unaltered scan as an 8 x 10 print on both an
>Epson photo 700 and HP photosmart printer. I used the same computer and same
>program to print the slide. Each printer was set for its best output. I
>used the same high res, glossy photo paper for each print. Both prints were
>very good. Although the Epson printer is rated at a higher resolution, there
>was no discernible difference in sharpness between the two prints. The
>colors were noticeable more saturated on the HP print, an looked more like
>the original slide and the scanned image.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your finding (that the Photosmart
printer produced a more saturated print than Epson 700 did for the SAME
bitmap file). However, maybe there is a good explanation. The HP printer
is specifically designed to work together with the Photosmart scanner, so
naturally the bitmap you produced is already optimized (in terms of color
saturation and contrast) for the best result from the Photosmart printer.
It is quite possible the Epson did not performed as well in your test,
simply becuase you did not optimize the bitmap in its favor instead.
Here is my experience: I use a HP Photosmart scanner as well. Initially,
I used all the default settings on the scanner in making bitmaps from my
negatives. When I printed the first few pictures on my Epson, I also felt
that the color saturation and contrast were not as good as "real" photos.
But then I realized that I can easily adjust those parameters in Photo
Delux (included with the Epson 700). I found out that if I increase the
color saturation by roughly +10 to +15, my printouts will look almost
identical to enlargements I got back from photo labs. In fact, since
most of my pictues are on natural scenery (such as sunsets), I often like
to increase the saturation a lot more to make my prints look even better.
(Now for a shameless plug: come visit my gallery at
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=14403
Notice that most of those bitmaps were originally optimized for printing
on my Epson 700. I have to increase the brightness by +10 during conversion
from hi-res to low-res, just to make them look bright enough on the screen.)
Anyway, I guess my message is this: if I were there to adjust the bitmap
for your test photos, most of your friends may be Epson 700 owners by now.
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
Bob G.
but you didn't indicate what brand of glossy paper you used. This does
make a difference. When comparing the photo output of the Epson printers
with other printers when using glossy paper, you really should use the
Epson photo paper (or other Epson glossy paper) with the Epson printers.
In addition to the paper used, you also didn't adjust the Epson printer
for saturation. I believe the Epson print driver for this printer has
different automatic settings you can use for photo output that you could
have used. You could have easily adjusted the Epson to match the
saturation level of the HP. I have seen prints from the HP that had
colors that were saturated more than the originals. With my Epson Stylus
Photo, the prints basically match the saturation levels of the original
photos.
gard...@health.missouri.edu wrote:
>
> I have been reading the Epson vs HP debate here for some time. One thing
> which is lacking is a direct comparison. I have recently completed such a
> comparison. I scanned a Fuji velvia slide at 2400 dpi on an HP photosmart
> scanner. I then printed the unaltered scan as an 8 x 10 print on both an
> Epson photo 700 and HP photosmart printer. I used the same computer and same
> program to print the slide. Each printer was set for its best output. I
> used the same high res, glossy photo paper for each print. Both prints were
> very good. Although the Epson printer is rated at a higher resolution, there
> was no discernible difference in sharpness between the two prints. The
> colors were noticeable more saturated on the HP print, an looked more like
> the original slide and the scanned image. I showed both prints to several
> serious amateur photographers, not telling them how they were made. Each
> photographer felt the HP photosmart print was the better print. All were
> very surprised to find out that both prints were from ink jet printers rather
> than my darkroom. I returned the Epson photo 700 and have kept the HP
> Photosmart. I is of interested that 4 of 7 photographers who I showed the
> prints to have bought photo printers and scanners. Each has bought the HP
> Photosmart printer after seeing both prints I have nothing against the
kokleong
Photosmart vs PhotoEX vs 740 vs 640
http://members.xoom.com/kltham/reviews/Shootout/compare.html
Photosmart vs Photo Stylus (previous version of Photo 700)
http://www.greer.simplenet.com/Digital_Photography/Image_Output/Inkjet/Output_Comparisons/output_comparisons.html
kokleong
http://come.to/digitaldarkroom
spam"@sover.net tharding
>You indicate you used the same high res. glossy paper for each printer,
>but you didn't indicate what brand of glossy paper you used. This does
>make a difference. When comparing the photo output of the Epson printers
>with other printers when using glossy paper, you really should use the
>Epson photo paper (or other Epson glossy paper) with the Epson printers.
>
>In addition to the paper used, you also didn't adjust the Epson printer
>for saturation. I believe the Epson print driver for this printer has
>different automatic settings you can use for photo output that you could
>have used. You could have easily adjusted the Epson to match the
>saturation level of the HP. I have seen prints from the HP that had
>colors that were saturated more than the originals. With my Epson Stylus
>Photo, the prints basically match the saturation levels of the original
>photos.
>
>>
>> I have been reading the Epson vs HP debate here for some time. One thing
>> which is lacking is a direct comparison. I have recently completed such a
>> comparison. I scanned a Fuji velvia slide at 2400 dpi on an HP photosmart
>> scanner. I then printed the unaltered scan as an 8 x 10 print on both an
>> Epson photo 700 and HP photosmart printer. I used the same computer and same
>> program to print the slide. Each printer was set for its best output. I
>> used the same high res, glossy photo paper for each print. Both prints were
>> very good. Although the Epson printer is rated at a higher resolution, there
>> was no discernible difference in sharpness between the two prints. The
>> colors were noticeable more saturated on the HP print, an looked more like
>> the original slide and the scanned image. I showed both prints to several
>> serious amateur photographers, not telling them how they were made. Each
>> photographer felt the HP photosmart print was the better print. All were
>> very surprised to find out that both prints were from ink jet printers rather
>> than my darkroom. I returned the Epson photo 700 and have kept the HP
>> Photosmart. I is of interested that 4 of 7 photographers who I showed the
>> prints to have bought photo printers and scanners. Each has bought the HP
>> Photosmart printer after seeing both prints I have nothing against the
>> Epson printer and felt its out put was excellent. It has the advantage of be
>> usable for both general printing and photo printing while the HP is only good
>> for photo printing. But for my purposes, printing photo only, the output
>> from the HP was visibly better.
>>
>> n...@philabs.research.philips.com (Nai-Chi Lee) wrote:
>> > In article <zheD2.29$Mc....@news15.ispnews.com>,
>> > tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
>> > >I too have the photosmart. I love it. Great prints and awsome price. The
>> SNIP
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Wow, this is really going good now :)
I guess my point is lost in all this... For $199, you really have a hard time
beating the Photosmart Printer. I do not have a HP scanner, just a cheap $50
Artec. I have a HP C30 cam, and just love snapping pics and printing them out
WITHOUT all the playing around with colors. Out of all the printers I have
had, I can say this one is the best. What I see on the screen comes out of the
printer looking the same. My Epson never was like that. You always had to play
with the colors to make them look right, and waste alot of ink reprinting to
get it all looking right. I am just amazed how the HP Photosmart matches
colors soo well. And the light areas do not show dots like other inkjets do,
to show shading... Just a great printer.
Wee-Kiat Kong
again, but the resolution controversy also seems to be flaring up.
Firstly the facts. The PhotoSmart is a 300x300 dpi printer but this DOES
NOT mean that it is a useless photo printer. HP has decided not to
persue the use of high resolutions to attain photo-quality but has
instead elected to increase the colour gamut (or range) of the dots the
printer lays down.
HP printers use a ink layering technology (which they call PhotoREt II
and C-REt) to layer up to 8 ink drop per pixel (or 16 for the new HP
700/800 series) in a 300x300 dpi grid . This means that each pixel can
have hundreds more colour combinations than a printer which cannot
perform ink layering. This results in a more "continuous-tone" image.
Epson printers on the other hand has decided to use extremely high
resolutions (probably for marketing purposes) to obtain photo-quality
prints. This means that each pixel in the 1440x720 dpi grid can only be
1 out of 24 colours and the other colours are producing using dithering
(although in my opinion, Epson's dithering algorithms (which Epson calls
AcuPhoto Halftoning) are one of the best).
In MY OPINION, the Epson does reproduce photographs better than the
PhotoSmart. Colours from the Epson as opposed to the colours produced by
the Photosmart seem more natural to me.
Some people prefer the more vibrant images produced by the PhotoSmart,
saying that they give the images more "pop" than the images printed from
the Epson. BUT this is simply a matter of taste so you can't really say
which printer is better than the other.
Now from digital photography, to the more "conventional" form of
photography.
Actually, "tharding"'s remark about the resolution of a photograph being
around 300 dpi is a lot closer to the 1000+ dpi that was quoted in the
reply. In fact photographic paper can only resolve about 200 dpi. Only
photographic film (ie the 35mm stuff that goes in your camera) is
capable of capturing 2000+ dpi colour images, with the resolution
depending on the film speed.
WHAT?! They why does my 300 dpi inkjet print pathetic images when
compared to a 200 dpi photograph? Well this is because your old 300 dpi
inkjet is only capable of reproducing up to 8 different colours per
pixel and then dumping these pixels in a 300x300 dpi grid. What real
photographic paper does is that it is capable of reproducing almost an
infinite number of colours in one of these pixels. This is why you
cannot see the "pixels" in a photograph because they blend extremely
well with each other.
Unfortunately a lot of people have the idea of when a photograph is
printed at a higher resolution, the images are of a higher quality. This
is most probably caused by Epson's 1440 DPI campaigne (which is a stroke
of genius IMO) to boost the market success of their printers.
While resolution is important, it is not the only factor in obtaining
photo-quality prints. HP has clearly shown this with their PhotoREt II
series of printers (with their 300 dpi resolutions) producing images
which matches images produced by Epson's original 1440 dpi printers (ie
the 600, 640 and the 800). Even Epson has acknowledged that resolution
is not everything, that is why the Epson 740 and 900 are still a
1440x720 dpi printer (the 740 has a theoretical grid capabitility of
1440x1440 dpi while the 900 has a theoretical grid capability of
2880x1440 dpi). Instead they too are also increasing the colour gamut of
their printers by introducing their Variable-Dot size technology.
Wee-Kiat
Nai-Chi Lee wrote:
>
> >Skin tones
> >are amaxingly realistic as well as all the other colors. It is not a high res
> >printer. #00 dpi, but that is not an issue since real photos are only about
> >300 dpi also.
>
Nai-Chi Lee
tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
> Out of all the printers I have
>had, I can say this one is the best. What I see on the screen comes out of the
>printer looking the same. My Epson never was like that.
Wait a minute, I thought you said (in an earlier post) that you owned a
Epson 640. So are you saying that the Photosmart printer is better than
an Epson 640, or just trying to "pull a Clinton" here?
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=14403
gard...@health.missouri.edu
work. I would rather spend my time taking pictures and composing . If I
wanted to spend a lot of time adjusting contrast, saturation and color
balance, I could go back to my darkroom and jobo processor! I addition, I
view my pictures at a normal viewing distance. I never using a magnify
glass, or hold them 3-4” from my eyes. Differences that are not seen at a
normal viewing distance are not important to me. It basically comes down to
what you want to do with your time and photographs. There is no one best
printer just as the is no one best camera, lens or film.
gard...@health.missouri.edu
possible relationship between the scanner and the printer. The photosmart
scanner was the only one in my price range and thus it was a given I would
buy it. I had the printers home for a brief period of time, and needed to
return one of them within 24 hours. I had little time to devote to tweaking
each printer or the scans. My goal was to see which printer produced output
pleasing to me with the least work. Your comment about adjusting the contrast
and saturation are well taken. I will be needing a printer that will
produce larger prints, and I will likely have to by an Epson Ex or 1200 to do
this. I am glad to hear I will be able to get pleasing output with it. By
the way, I enjoyed you pictures, we are interested in the same kind of
photography
spam"@sover.net tharding
>In article <UVJD2.55$R3....@news3.ispnews.com>,
>tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
>> Out of all the printers I have
>>had, I can say this one is the best. What I see on the screen comes out of the
>>printer looking the same. My Epson never was like that.
>
>Wait a minute, I thought you said (in an earlier post) that you owned a
>Epson 640. So are you saying that the Photosmart printer is better than
>an Epson 640, or just trying to "pull a Clinton" here?
>;-)
I never said I had a Epson 640, I said I had an Epson. I had an Epson 400. My
friends have 600's. I And yes, I think the Photosmart is better then the
Epsons.
spam"@sover.net tharding
>tharding wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Finally, I hope this will put to rest the misinformation that the Epson
>> >700 costs more per page than the HP Photosmart
>>
>> And even after all this, wait a year or soo until the Epson prints fade, and
>> then look at a Photosmart photo. Then you will see the biggest difference..
>
>seems like the print-out from the Epson fared better than the prints
>from the PhotoSmart. I'm not sure what the test conditions were, but I
>think it was exposed to sunlight for a couple of weeks.
>
>Also back then, Epson had not released their more fade-resistant paper,
>so now when using their new Photo paper, it seems like the prints from
>the Epson would "live" for even longer.
I guess "someone" in the group must have had much different results from the
Independant lab that first did the testing.
Bob G.
>
> That is exactly my point. My goal is to get the best print with the least
> work. I would rather spend my time taking pictures and composing . If I
> wanted to spend a lot of time adjusting contrast, saturation and color
> balance, I could go back to my darkroom and jobo processor! I addition, I
> view my pictures at a normal viewing distance. I never using a magnify
> glass, or hold them 3-4” from my eyes. Differences that are not seen at a
> normal viewing distance are not important to me. It basically comes down to
> what you want to do with your time and photographs. There is no one best
> printer just as the is no one best camera, lens or film.
What do you mean alot of work? You just have to adjust the print driver
once for the printer, and use those settings for all your printing. For
most people, they just find the automatic setting (there isn't that
many) that matches their system best.
The reason for all the comments is that your first post indicated you
had adjusted both printers for their best output. However, this was not
actually the case. You also never indicated what paper you used for the
output you compared. You also indicated that you used the prints from
both printers to influence others to purchase the HP. Considering the
prints from the Epson may have been affected by paper you used (this can
have a big affect, especially if it was HP paper) and the fact that the
settings may have been off, should you actually be using the prints you
made with the Epson as an example you show others of the best it can
produce?
Nai-Chi Lee
tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
>I never said I had a Epson 640, I said I had an Epson. I had an Epson 400. My
>friends have 600's. I And yes, I think the Photosmart is better then the
>Epsons.
So are you actually saying that "I think the Photosmart is better than
the Epson 400 and 600", or are you trying to pull yet another Clinton here?
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
BTW, for those who are unfamiliar with American slangs, to "pull a Clinton"
means to give a legally-accurate statement which is craftlyly worded to
mislead the audience.
Nai-Chi Lee
Which "Independant lab" are you referring to?
No wait, I get it. The name of the lab which was paid by HP to do their
fade test was called "Independant", right?
You just pulled yet another Clinton, you sly fox.
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
(To "pull a Clinton" means to give a legally-accurate statement which is
craftly word in order to mislead the audience.)
Nai-Chi Lee
<gard...@health.missouri.edu> wrote:
>You are correct about adjusting the output for the different printer and the
>possible relationship between the scanner and the printer. The photosmart
>scanner was the only one in my price range and thus it was a given I would
>buy it. I had the printers home for a brief period of time, and needed to
>return one of them within 24 hours. I had little time to devote to tweaking
>each printer or the scans. My goal was to see which printer produced output
>pleasing to me with the least work. Your comment about adjusting the contrast
>and saturation are well taken. I will be needing a printer that will
>produce larger prints, and I will likely have to by an Epson Ex or 1200 to do
>this. I am glad to hear I will be able to get pleasing output with it. By
>the way, I enjoyed you pictures, we are interested in the same kind of
>photography
I'm glad that you enjoyed my photos. Please, go visit my gallery again at
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=14403
Let me know by email which picture you like best, and I'll mail you a 8x11
copy printed from my Epson 700 - absolutely free. I'm doing this just
because I'm a nice guy. Okay, I lied. I'm doing this only to say that
"My Epson 700 is better than your HP Photosmart. Nah Nah Nah..."
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
P.S. Just in case anyone else is still read this far, you must be either
really bored or really interested in the debate between Epson 700 and HP
Photosmart printers. My "free photo" offer is extended to the first 20
persons who ask for it. You must tell me by email which photo you want,
and give me your mailing address. The bitmap files are originally at
2160x1440x24. I'll make 8x10 or 8x11 prints (at 180dpi), using either
Epson Photo Paper or Photo-quality Glossy Paper. You'll be the judge and
tell me whether the Epson 700's color saturation is good enough.
Stephen Quam
to a friend, and bought an Epson Photo 700. It is better hands down.
It's has a higher resolution, better skin tones. I'll admit both prints
look great. I ran into a problem with the HP prints a while back, I gave
one of the prints to a friend who happened have sweaty hands, and the
ink came up, and became like a thick paste. The epson ink is still water
soluable, but has a higher resistance to this problem.
I consider myself an unbiased source on this matter, as I used to by
exclusively hp printers until now. I wouldn't even look at the others
until a friend forced me to look at the epson. It took several weeks
before I finally admitted that the Epson was better.
Cheers,
Stephen
spam"@sover.net tharding
Oh well. I guess I judge the quality of the prints by the looks and not the
water resistance. I usually put my good photos in a frame to protect them.
This has really gotten farther then I expected. I did not intend for this to
break down into a "Na Na Na" type thing. This is like cars, you think your car
maker is better because you bought it, I think mine is better. I like the
Photosmart, it does great work for a 2-3 year old technology. Epson is just
now catching up. But in my opinion, the Photosmart wins hands down. Just the
Epson clogging and banding is enough to keep me away from them. Myself and all
my computer friends have or had Epsons, and the banding is ALWAYS a problem.
If you can live with it, then great. I could not. I hated to waste a good
glossy paper to banding. Keep your Epsons, Ill keep my Photosmart. Then we are
all happy. Im gone.... no more debate. I have other newsgroups to scan.... :)
Bryan
there just a few who experienced it that made a big deal? I am looking
at either the HP 882C or the Epson 700. I am partial to HP because I
have had my 855c for 3 to 4 years with not one problem. The print is
just a little grainy compared to the new printers. I compared the
outputs of the two printers at the store and they looked similar. Does
anyone know of a computer store that will let you bring in your own
picture on disk and your own paper and compare the two printers?
Thanks for your help.
Bob G.
I'm glad you're happy with your Photosmart, but you can't make general
statements about all Epson models just based on your experience with the
Epson Stylus 400 (and your friends model 600). The Epson six (6) color
photo printers are different than the Epson four (4) color printers you
had previous experience with. The original poster was asking about photo
printers.
I'm glad you at least decided to tell us what model you had (in your 5th
or 6th post). You weren't lying when you said you had an Epson printer.
However, considering the original poster you first replied to was asking
about the Epson 700 versus the Photosmart, maybe you could have been
clear about which Epson model you had experience with in your first
post?
I'm not sure what banding problem you had with your Epson printer (model
400), but I have never had any banding problems with my Epson Stylus
Photo printer, and I see very little reference to banding in this
newsgroup regarding any of the Epson six (6) color photo printers. I
also haven't seen any posts in this newsgroup regarding an clogging
problems with any of the Epson six (6) color photo printers.
spam"@sover.net tharding
>I'm glad you're happy with your Photosmart, but you can't make general
>statements about all Epson models just based on your experience with the
>Epson Stylus 400 (and your friends model 600). The Epson six (6) color
>photo printers are different than the Epson four (4) color printers you
>had previous experience with. The original poster was asking about photo
>printers.
>
>I'm glad you at least decided to tell us what model you had (in your 5th
>or 6th post). You weren't lying when you said you had an Epson printer.
>However, considering the original poster you first replied to was asking
>about the Epson 700 versus the Photosmart, maybe you could have been
>clear about which Epson model you had experience with in your first
>post?
>
>I'm not sure what banding problem you had with your Epson printer (model
>400), but I have never had any banding problems with my Epson Stylus
>Photo printer, and I see very little reference to banding in this
>newsgroup regarding any of the Epson six (6) color photo printers. I
>also haven't seen any posts in this newsgroup regarding an clogging
>problems with any of the Epson six (6) color photo printers.
Yes, just to clarify, I had a Stylus 400. My friends all had 600 or 800s. They
all band. I have seen nothing but clogging and banding problems with Epsons in
this newsgroup. I am not sure, but it seems to me some of them were Epson
Photo printers. The last i knew, Epson has not yet changed thier printing
prosess. Still built in print heads, non replacable. That just seems to be a
flawed system to start. The original post I replyed to was asking for
expiriences with photo printers. I thought the person would like to know the
past problems with Epsons, along with the good and bad about the HP
Photosmart (just the fact that all it does is photos is a drawback for some
people). This other guy (Nai-Chi Lee) has pretty much dragged the whole
discussion down (especially with the Clinton remarks). I am sure he likes his
Epson. It shows. But he is not in the market for a new printer, the other guy
was.
As usual, the newsgroups can get pretty heated at times. That is why I decided
to not replay to any more of his comments. When an intelligent conversation
goes down hill, it is time to quit.
When someone asks about photo printer expiriences, I will always praise the
Photosmart (and at $199, it is a steal to anyone new to digital photo).
spam"@sover.net tharding
>In article <7bol23$b5f$1...@philabs-gw.philabs.research.philips.com>,
> n...@philabs.research.philips.com (Nai-Chi Lee) wrote:
>>>had, I can say this one is the best. What I see on the screen comes out of
> the
>>>printer looking the same. My Epson never was like that.
>>
>>Wait a minute, I thought you said (in an earlier post) that you owned a
>>Epson 640. So are you saying that the Photosmart printer is better than
>>an Epson 640, or just trying to "pull a Clinton" here?
>>;-)
>
>friends have 600's. I And yes, I think the Photosmart is better then the
>Epsons.
http://www.hp.com/peripherals2/misc/sample.html
There, anyone interested can get thier own sample free from HP.
Allen D Vogl
related to the photosmart fade resistants is in error. I have yet to see any
test published for the epson printers reguarding the fade resistance of their
inks. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe they can't afford to buy off and independent lab,
or maybe they know their product will not stand the test of time. My guess is
that you will here nothing from epson until they have something positive to say.
al
In article <7bs4l5$18m$1...@philabs-gw.philabs.research.philips.com>,
n...@philabs.research.philips.com says...
>
>In article <IS3E2.295$US5....@news15.ispnews.com>,
>tharding <tharding"no spam"@sover.net> wrote:
Jerry
the nod to the Alps dye subs.
I had two Alps 1000's (non-dye subs). I was bothered by lines and banding on both.
Are the dye subs better in this regard? Regardless of how fine the grain or absence
thereof, if you get banding, ugh!
Jerry
David Chien wrote:
> > than my darkroom. I returned the Epson photo 700 and have kept the HP
> > Photosmart. I is of interested that 4 of 7 photographers who I showed the
> > prints to have bought photo printers and scanners. Each has bought the HP
> > Photosmart printer after seeing both prints I have nothing against the
>
> market <$500 is better than these in superior photo output.
David Chien
> http://www.greer.simplenet.com/Digital_Photography/Image_Output/Inkjet/Output_Comparisons/output_comparisons.html
Unfortunately, scans of print samples at anything less that twice the resolution used to print the pictures are not
valid in use for comparions between printers due to the blurring and softening effect of scanning a high-res sample
at a low-resolution.
This 2x rule-of-thumb is mathmatically based and is also used in CDs and other encodings to produce output that is
'identical' to the human senses as the original. (eg. for CDs, sound is sampled at 40+Khz so that the upper end
divided by two results in coverage of the 20Khz upper limit that can normally be heard by humans).
If you don't scan at 2x the resolution, you can basically scan pictures from any printer that runs at higher than
scan resolution and will see no difference in resolution or detail between them (why? if you scan at 300dpi, you
will only see 300dpi of resolution and detail even off a 1440dpi original).
Best bet, get them drum scanned or use microphotography to grab a small area of the original for close-up
comparision.
david =)
David Chien
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm
In any case, two to three years for any inkjet print at the max. So remember to
make a backup of the original digital file so you can print another in a couple
years.
d =)
David Chien
> one of the prints to a friend who happened have sweaty hands, and the
> ink came up, and became like a thick paste. The epson ink is still water
> soluable, but has a higher resistance to this problem.
Spray with charcol fixative or UV overcoat to prevent this from happening.
David Chien
As for banding in non-dye-subs, either choose a different paper, or whip out the iron.
(after all, just the same as T-shirt iron-on transfers...)
d =)
While inkjets can get very good, in the under $500 range of home printers, nothing can
beat the non-inkjet sub-dye based Alps 1300/5000 printers. thus, I mention these as a
reference point for those in the market for a photo printer. After all, taking an
inkjet home to then discover dots all over the place can be a disapointment; so such
dots at all on Alps sub-dye printers.
spe...@mindspring.com
wrote:
For example, are you saying to scan the picture at 360 dpi to be
printed at 720dpi OR are you saying to scan at 720 dpi to print at 360
dpi??
I need a little more clarification.. in lamens terms.
- Daron
Tommy Mathis
> No banding in dye-subs. They use a final overcoat on the whole image.
> As for banding in non-dye-subs, either choose a different paper, or whip out the iron.
> (after all, just the same as T-shirt iron-on transfers...)
>
> d =)
>
> While inkjets can get very good, in the under $500 range of home printers, nothing can
> beat the non-inkjet sub-dye based Alps 1300/5000 printers. thus, I mention these as a
> reference point for those in the market for a photo printer. After all, taking an
> inkjet home to then discover dots all over the place can be a disapointment; so such
> dots at all on Alps sub-dye printers.
>
How much in $'s US?
spe...@mindspring.com
wrote:
I've seen them for as little as $425-$435 $US.
rob...@my-dejanews.com
colors, the Alps dye-sub output is great, however, for pastels such as a light
sky you will often see color banding. Before you reply that you've never seen
it on your Alps, try the following:
Create a smooth gradiant fill, full paper width, with white on one side,
black on the other, if you want, try a couple of different colors, but
white->gray-> black shows it very well. Then print in dye sub mode and see
how uniform it looks. You will very likely see colored bands in some of the
lighter parts of the gradiant running across the paper then fading out as you
get to the darker sections.
Ralph
In article <36E6D44D...@cyou.com>,
Tommy Mathis <mat...@cyou.com> wrote:
> David Chien wrote:
>
> > No banding in dye-subs. They use a final overcoat on the whole image.
> > As for banding in non-dye-subs, either choose a different paper, or whip
out the iron.
********** NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE *****************
My email address is robrown AT evergreen DASH funds DOT com
Sorry about this, but I hate spam
**************************************************
java...@my-dejanews.com
a Mac B&W G3 to Alps MD1300? The Alps site does have one:
alps usb upgarde (sic) kit for md-5000 - ALP095317 87.99
Amazing, huh? $90 for a cable? (or is this the only way to do it?)
The MD1300 is perfectly happy hanging off one of my PCs right now; I'm
just looking for a way of hooking it up to my Macs on occasion...
Daniel L. Smith
Sonoma County, California
dary...@america.net
> Can anyone recommend a USB to parallel cable that will work with
> a Mac B&W G3 to Alps MD1300? The Alps site does have one:
I bought a Belkin USB to Centronics (parallel) adapter for about $40 online.
Seems to work fine with my MD-5000.
java...@my-dejanews.com
> I bought a Belkin USB to Centronics (parallel) adapter for about $40 online.
> Seems to work fine with my MD-5000.
Great! Thanks much for the tip.
Daniel
Ron Martell
>Can anyone recommend a USB to parallel cable that will work with
>a Mac B&W G3 to Alps MD1300? The Alps site does have one:
>
>alps usb upgarde (sic) kit for md-5000 - ALP095317 87.99
>
>Amazing, huh? $90 for a cable? (or is this the only way to do it?)
>
>The MD1300 is perfectly happy hanging off one of my PCs right now; I'm
>just looking for a way of hooking it up to my Macs on occasion...
>
There is a bit more to it than just a cable.
The USB signal is serial - all the data bits go down the same (only)
data wire.
To convert that to parallel the 8 data bits for each byte (character)
have to be collected in a buffer and then all 8 simultaneously sent
down the 8 data wires of the parallel cable.
Not a difficult or particularly expensive problem but it does involve
more than "just a cable".
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://www.islandnet.com/~rmartell/online.htm
boss...@my-dejanews.com
I reboot my pc then it wont. All settings look fine in printer panel and
control panel.
Did you do anything special to get the Belkins cable to work?
Are you using the Alps drivers for USB or the regular drivers?
I am using the Alps Dye Sub / USB drivers.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Bossanov.
In article <7d6ln9$ite$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,