Best Color Printer for Pictures????
John Finley
What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
I have a HP 1200 but is only 300 DPI.
Thanks,
John Finley
Miami, Florida
sky...@msn.com
Moreno Polloni
John Finley wrote in message ...
>What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
>
>I have a HP 1200 but is only 300 DPI.
>
Check out the Epson 5000. It's probably as good as the Iris, but can only print
to 13x19.
Pat McClain
Just switched from Epson to HP1120C. Very satisfied.
Jonathan
Have the new Epson stylus 700. Love it. Does very well with photo paper.
Problems with it are that it is limited in format size. Nothing wider than
8.5 or higher, depending on how you look at it.
Michael Greer
John Finley wrote:
> What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
Boy, you are going to open a can of worms. Keep in mind that this is an
opinion question and what you're going to get are opinions (mine
included) not facts.
I'm, not to to write, "in my opinion" next to everything. But that's
what you are getting.
For PHOTO ONLY printing in the sub $500 category there are 3 technology
choices and 4 product to choose from.
Technologies:
1) HP's Layering Technology (inkjet)
2) Epson's "Accuphoto" Technology (inkjet)
3) Alps' Dye Sub Technology (dye sub)
Products:
1) HP Photosmart
2) Epson Stylus Photo 700
3) Epson Stylus Photo EX (wide format version of 700)
4) Alps MD-1300
Note: There are several small format (4x6 inches) dye-sub type printers
currently available. I have not included them in this comparison.
Both HP and Epson utilize 6 color (black, yellow, cyan, light cyan,
magenta, light magenta) inkjet technology. However, they apply it in
different ways. The Photosmart is a 300 dpi printer, but that number is
deceiving. Because they lay multiple dots at a single location, they
have a high "color resolution". Therefore, a high spacial resolution
(dpi) is not as critical. Epson on the other hand doesn't layer dots.
They pack a lot of dots into a small area, in specific patterns to
simulate all the colors in the color spectrum. Because of this, Epson
prints are much more dependant on dpi than HP prints. That's why they
have such high spacial resolutions. There color resolution is relatively
low.
Spectacular results can be obtained by either approach. Epson's
technology has the advantage of producing better text. Why would a photo
printer need good text? It may not, depending on your application. For
me, I overlay a lot of my photos have text messages. Therefore, text
performance is important to this photographer. Which appraoch is
currently capable of superior performance is a matter of personal
preference.
Alps on the offer hand uses a completely different technology. One that
is usually found in printers that cost multiple thousands of dollars.
The output from their printer is stunning. Much superior to both Epson
and HP on the microscopic level. But when viewed as a normal person
would view them, I personally think the inkjets hold up very well, even
against "real" photos. Speaking os "real" photos, the Alps on close
inspection is going to resemble a "real" photo more than an Epson or HP
inkjet. There are absolutely no discernable dots from the Alps. The Alps
has it's limitations. You must use Alps' photo paper to get the photo
results. An Alps print costs more than an Epson or HP print. And some
(me included) have noted some banding problems on the Alps 1300. It's
not severe, but it does exist in the prints I've had done. On the plus
side, it's prints are *probably* going to be more fade resistant than an
HP or Epson print. And they are water proof.
Bottom line. It's been my experience that prints from any of these
machines will have 99.9% of people thinking that they are "real"
photographs. You will have to look at run costs (ink and paper) per
print, fade issues, water resistance issues, initial cost, accessibility
of consumables, speed, output size, intended application, as well as
image quality to determine the right one for you.
>
>
> I have a HP 1200 but is only 300 DPI.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Finley
> Miami, Florida
> sky...@msn.com
--
Mike Greer
"Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision."
Mirage
The 'Best' color printer for pictures is the Kodak DS8650, though I'm not
sure that's what you are asking for.
Mirage
John Finley wrote in message ...
>What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
>
Jim Gilliland
Michael Greer wrote:
>
> John Finley wrote:
>
> > What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
>
> choices and 4 product to choose from.
>
> Technologies:
> 1) HP's Layering Technology (inkjet)
> 2) Epson's "Accuphoto" Technology (inkjet)
> 3) Alps' Dye Sub Technology (dye sub)
>
> Products:
> 1) HP Photosmart
> 2) Epson Stylus Photo 700
> 3) Epson Stylus Photo EX (wide format version of 700)
> 4) Alps MD-1300
Do you have an opinion on the Lexmark 5700? It would seem to be similar
in technology to the Epson, but it offers 1200x1200 dpi. I ask about
that one specifically because I can get it through my company at an
attractive price.
Peter King
>Do you have an opinion on the Lexmark 5700? It would seem to be similar
>in technology to the Epson, but it offers 1200x1200 dpi. I ask about
>that one specifically because I can get it through my company at an
>attractive price.
I believe that the Lexmark 5700 is being discontinued and replaced by the
7200.
It is 1200x1200 dpi, and I am very happy with the output, especially for
under $250.
Pete
Murray Zaharia
I believe you have that info backward. ;-)
--
Murray Zaharia
to reply remove HAVE A NICE DAY from email address
Peter King wrote in message <6lrshd$m04$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
Michael Greer
Peter King wrote:
> >Do you have an opinion on the Lexmark 5700? It would seem to be similar
> >in technology to the Epson, but it offers 1200x1200 dpi. I ask about
> >that one specifically because I can get it through my company at an
> >attractive price.
>
> I believe that the Lexmark 5700 is being discontinued and replaced by the
> 7200.
Actually it's the other way around. Forst there was the 7000, then the 7200,
then the 5700. The 5700 is suppose to be a 7200 with a better paper handling
mechanism.
> It is 1200x1200 dpi, and I am very happy with the output, especially for
> under $250.
>
>
> Pete
--
Michael Greer
Jim Gilliland wrote:
> Michael Greer wrote:
> >
> > John Finley wrote:
> >
> > > What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
> >
> > For PHOTO ONLY printing in the sub $500 category there are 3 technology
> > choices and 4 product to choose from.
> >
> > Technologies:
> > 1) HP's Layering Technology (inkjet)
> > 2) Epson's "Accuphoto" Technology (inkjet)
> > 3) Alps' Dye Sub Technology (dye sub)
> >
> > Products:
> > 1) HP Photosmart
> > 2) Epson Stylus Photo 700
> > 3) Epson Stylus Photo EX (wide format version of 700)
> > 4) Alps MD-1300
>
> Do you have an opinion on the Lexmark 5700? It would seem to be similar
> in technology to the Epson, but it offers 1200x1200 dpi. I ask about
> that one specifically because I can get it through my company at an
> attractive price.
My fault. In an effort to be all inclusive, I forgot about this gem of a
printer. IN MY OPINION, the Lexmark 5700 w/photo cart, is *slightly* shy of
Epson's original Stylus Photo in image quality. Since I prefer the Stylus
Photo output to the Photosmart's output, I would say the 5700 with photo
cart is very competitive with the Photosmart in image quality. The problem I
have with Lexmark products is consumable availability. You can get HP,
Epson, or Canon inks and paper from just about anywhere. But with Lexmark,
you are forced to be a good planner because you are probably going to have
to stock your supplies via mail order. Which means forward planning.
Jim Gilliland
Michael Greer wrote:
> Both HP and Epson utilize 6 color (black, yellow, cyan, light cyan,
> magenta, light magenta) inkjet technology.
Michael, thanks for your earlier reply. I note that these 6-color
printers seem to be designed specifically for the photo-printing market,
while the 4-color versions are aimed at more general business graphics.
Two questions:
What is the benefit of the 6-color approach vs 4-color for photographic
printing?
If one were to choose a single printer for both purposes, which kind of
printer would better meet the compromise of trying to accomplish both
goals?
Valburg
Michael Greer wrote:
> But with Lexmark,
> you are forced to be a good planner because you are probably going to
> have
> to stock your supplies via mail order. Which means forward planning.
This may be changing. Office Max (at least the one in Scranton, PA)
carries supplies for the Lexmark, including the photo cartridge.
Best,
Mitch Valburg
TheCharlie
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:54:59 GMT, "Murray Zaharia" <zah...@direct.ca>
wrote:
>I believe you have that info backward. ;-)
what? the 1200 x 1200 ?
Michael Greer
Jim Gilliland wrote:
> Michael Greer wrote:
>
> > Both HP and Epson utilize 6 color (black, yellow, cyan, light cyan,
> > magenta, light magenta) inkjet technology.
>
> Michael, thanks for your earlier reply. I note that these 6-color
> printers seem to be designed specifically for the photo-printing market,
> while the 4-color versions are aimed at more general business graphics.
You are correct.
> Two questions:
>
> What is the benefit of the 6-color approach vs 4-color for photographic
> printing?
I'll try to keep this short. The currently available 6 color printers prove
superior to 4 color printers in light areas of a photograph. Areas like
light blue sky, caucasion skin, etc. The reason is that the 2 extra colors
(light cyan and light megenta) are used in those areas instead of the 4
color printers that dither dots with the white surface of the paper
*therefore they dots are much more noticable). In these areas, the 6 color
printers will look more continuous tone than today's 4 color printers. In
darker regions, the 6 color printers have no advantage.
In my opinion, if you shoot a lot of people, the 6 color printers will be
more effective for you. If you don't (you may do a lot of night
photography), you will still get superior images from a 6 color printer, but
the differences won't be as great.
> If one were to choose a single printer for both purposes, which kind of
> printer would better meet the compromise of trying to accomplish both
> goals?
It totally depends on you. Personally with the cost of printers today, I say
get one of each. Just 8 short months ago, the Epson Stylus Photo and the HP
Photosmart printer were both $499. Today, the new Epson Stylus Photo 700
(which is superior to the original Stylus Photo) is sold at most places for
$279 and as low as $240. The HP 722C is somewhere around $280. ogether
that's $520. A mere $20 more than just a "photo" printer 8 months ago!
Having said that, the best all around printer in my opinion is the Lexmark
5700. It uses pigment based black ink for outstanding "regular" printing on
plain paper (just like HP's non Photosmart printers). Then, you can throw in
the photo cart and turn it into an outstanding 1200dpi, 6 color photo
printer. Plus, it goes for only $250!
--
Come visit my site for information on digital photography and other
interesting topics. The site isn't finished yet, but I'm working on it.
http://www.greer.simplenet.com
Mike Greer
Sutjahjo Ngaserin
The best one will be a good dye sub from Tektronix, or the latest Epson
Stylus 5000 (with RIP)
Amongst the cheaper version, you will get the best quality from Epson Photo
700 and EX.
IMO, the new Epson Photo printers are really exceptional in printout
quality, significantly better than the Canon, Lexmarks and HP....
Jim Gilliland
Michael Greer wrote:
>
> > If one were to choose a single printer for both purposes, which kind of
> > printer would better meet the compromise of trying to accomplish both
> > goals?
>
> It totally depends on you. Personally with the cost of printers today, I say
> Having said that, the best all around printer in my opinion is the Lexmark
> 5700. It uses pigment based black ink for outstanding "regular" printing on
> plain paper (just like HP's non Photosmart printers). Then, you can throw in
> the photo cart and turn it into an outstanding 1200dpi, 6 color photo
> printer. Plus, it goes for only $250!
Thanks. I hadn't realized that the Lexmark combined both capabilities
in that way. That would seem to make it the ideal choice for someone
(like me) who is looking for a single device that can handle both kinds
of output.
> Come visit my site for information on digital photography and other
> interesting topics. The site isn't finished yet, but I'm working on it.
> http://www.greer.simplenet.com
I'll take a look. Thanks again.
Murray Zaharia
No, the 5700 is replacing the 7200.
--
Murray Zaharia
to reply remove HAVE A NICE DAY from email address
TheCharlie wrote in message <358ecc9a...@news2.new-york.net>...
Barrie Stephenson
Is this a poll?
I vote for the Epson Stylus Photo 700.
Barrie, York, UK
Jim Gilliland wrote in message <35825EBB...@ibm.net>...
Rog
The Canon BJC-7000 comes with both 4-color and 6-color cartridges.
Print quality (IMHO) is superior to that of the Epsons I've seen.
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:07:26 -0400, Jim Gilliland <rri...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>Michael Greer wrote:
>
>> Both HP and Epson utilize 6 color (black, yellow, cyan, light cyan,
>> magenta, light magenta) inkjet technology.
>
>Michael, thanks for your earlier reply. I note that these 6-color
>printers seem to be designed specifically for the photo-printing market,
>while the 4-color versions are aimed at more general business graphics.
>Two questions:
>
>What is the benefit of the 6-color approach vs 4-color for photographic
>printing?
>
ssan...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6lt9bm$h9d$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>,
I'll second that opinion about the new Epsons -- the Photo EX
is a fantastic printer. The only real complaint seems to be
that they go through color cartridges rapidly but I have seen
Epson brand 5-color carts for as low as $14 on the net. Myself,
I refill them and have had good luck with both the refill kits
from Repeat-O-Type and NuJet. Once I learned the "trick" of
filling them via the main feed hole on the bottom rather than
poking a hole in the label on the top things have been much
smoother and much less messy :-)
The Photo EX is my sixth Epson printer, I've had a Stylus Color
(the original), three Stylus Pro XLs, Stylus Photo and they
have all performed very well. Only one printer ever had to go
back for service for a severe clog and Epson picked it up at
my door via FedEx Red and returned it the same way three days
later - I was impressed!
I'm happy to report that the new Photo EX does not exhibit the
dreaded "pizza wheel" marking problem of the original Photo
printer - or if it does I have yet to have seen it! One thing
still remains true though, Epson printers print best on Epson
paper. The only other paper I have found that works as well
is the Picture Perfect paper which is as heavy as any real
photo paper I used to use in my photo darkroom.
For those who don't need prints bigger than 8x10" in size
it would be very hard to beat the Stylus Photo 700 printer.
Considering the original Stylus Photo sold for $500 about a
year ago the new Photo 700 at $285 with twice the resolution
is a killer deal!
-Steve
http://www.steves-digicams.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
rafe b.
>In my opinion, if you shoot a lot of people, the 6 color printers will be
>more effective for you. If you don't (you may do a lot of night
>photography), you will still get superior images from a 6 color printer, but
>the differences won't be as great.
>
in my opinion, if you shoot a lot of people, you
belong in jail.
or maybe in talk.politics.guns.
sorry. just having a bit of a laugh.
rafe b.
Michael Greer
Rog wrote:
> The Canon BJC-7000 comes with both 4-color and 6-color cartridges.
> Print quality (IMHO) is superior to that of the Epsons I've seen.
Image quality is a subjective thing and no opinion is "wrong". But in my
opinion, the Canon 7000 doesn't measure up to any of the other 6 color
printers (Epson Stylus Photo/Photo 700/Photo EX, HP Photosmart, or Lexmark
7000/7200/5700). From my personal tests, the 7000 didn't perform as well as
Epson or HP 4 color printers (Epson Stylus Color 600/800/850, HP
720/722/890C).
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:07:26 -0400, Jim Gilliland <rri...@ibm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael Greer wrote:
> >
> >> Both HP and Epson utilize 6 color (black, yellow, cyan, light cyan,
> >> magenta, light magenta) inkjet technology.
> >
> >Michael, thanks for your earlier reply. I note that these 6-color
> >printers seem to be designed specifically for the photo-printing market,
> >while the 4-color versions are aimed at more general business graphics.
> >Two questions:
> >
> >What is the benefit of the 6-color approach vs 4-color for photographic
> >printing?
> >
> >If one were to choose a single printer for both purposes, which kind of
> >printer would better meet the compromise of trying to accomplish both
> >goals?
--
Come visit my site for information on digital photography and other
interesting topics. The site isn't finished yet, but I'm working on it.
http://www.greer.simplenet.com
Mike Greer
ROB HONEYCUTT
John,
Best I have seen is HP Photosmart and Alps MD 1300.
John Finley wrote:
>
> What currently is the best color printer for printing pictures?
>
Rob
Epson rule - but they are best when you use the special coated paper
(which is not that expensive, depending on your needs).
If you were comparing plain paper output, then maybe you didn't see the
best results that an Epson can produce.
Rob
Rog wrote:
>
> The Canon BJC-7000 comes with both 4-color and 6-color cartridges.
> Print quality (IMHO) is superior to that of the Epsons I've seen.
>