Photo printer choice

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I have been having trouble installing a HP Photosmart 7960 printer to
my WIN2K system (see my earlier posting, which has not yet been
responded to). It appears that my attempts to complete the
installation are going to fail and I am going to return the unit.

Does anyone here recommend a substitute machine? I am looking for a
"prosumer" printer with which to print high-resolution digital
pictures up to 8 x 10 inches in size (but also able to easily print 4
x 6 and 5 x 7 prints, as well).

The Canon and Epson machines seem decent, but what are the advantages
and disadvantages of each? My price range is up to about $300.00
(US).


Many thanks,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
7 answers Last reply
More about photo printer choice
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with Win2000.
    In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
    best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.

    If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
    choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All these
    printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
    correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some kind
    of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find useful.
    I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper feed
    path.

    Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
    converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on gloss
    papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be an
    issue.

    I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
    professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there is
    no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints from
    my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years with
    no fading.

    Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
    than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for them
    and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.

    As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
    genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my Epson
    1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I think
    the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable color
    using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
    Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
    instantly).

    If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the rest:

    Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only provides
    a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers can
    use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent paper
    makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
    settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful. Epson
    papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
    papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster Photo
    Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an ICM
    profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
    settings for high quality glossy paper.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Since the original post said "up to 8x10",the Epson R800 is the one to
    beat.Also there are not that many Epson printers using pigment based
    inks.The gloss optimiser is found on the R800,and I think that is the only
    one at this time.The 2200 does NOT use it!As for price,more like
    $400-650.The 2200 being in the $600-650 range.I just trashed my Epson 2200
    and bought an i9900.I have several HP PSC units that do a good job.I would
    agree the i860-i960 printers are very good buys.I am very unsatisfied with
    Epson printers and their cutomer support!
    It may be several years before I buy a new Epson! I have purchased 5
    printers in the last 3 months,so I do buy more printers than most people!
    "bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:E6lJc.92010$Kn3.25210@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
    > It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with Win2000.
    > In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
    > best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.
    >
    > If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
    > choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All
    these
    > printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
    > correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some
    kind
    > of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find
    useful.
    > I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper feed
    > path.
    >
    > Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
    > converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on
    gloss
    > papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be an
    > issue.
    >
    > I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
    > professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there
    is
    > no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints from
    > my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years
    with
    > no fading.
    >
    > Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
    > than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for them
    > and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.
    >
    > As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
    > genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my
    Epson
    > 1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I think
    > the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable color
    > using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
    > Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
    > instantly).
    >
    > If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the
    rest:
    >
    > Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only
    provides
    > a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers can
    > use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent paper
    > makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
    > settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful.
    Epson
    > papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
    > papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster
    Photo
    > Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an
    ICM
    > profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
    > settings for high quality glossy paper.
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I would suggest looking at the R800 also. It costs around $399. I am sure
    you can find it for better. If you want larger sizes then look at the 1280
    or 2200 by Epson. I own all 3 and they do wonderful work.


    "Douglas" <.> wrote in message news:goadnSyFuPWGa2jdRVn-gw@centurytel.net...
    > Since the original post said "up to 8x10",the Epson R800 is the one to
    > beat.Also there are not that many Epson printers using pigment based
    > inks.The gloss optimiser is found on the R800,and I think that is the only
    > one at this time.The 2200 does NOT use it!As for price,more like
    > $400-650.The 2200 being in the $600-650 range.I just trashed my Epson 2200
    > and bought an i9900.I have several HP PSC units that do a good job.I would
    > agree the i860-i960 printers are very good buys.I am very unsatisfied with
    > Epson printers and their cutomer support!
    > It may be several years before I buy a new Epson! I have purchased 5
    > printers in the last 3 months,so I do buy more printers than most people!
    > "bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:E6lJc.92010$Kn3.25210@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
    > > It is unclear what the problem is: WinXP drivers should work with
    Win2000.
    > > In any event if you want high quality photoprinting HP is really not the
    > > best way to go. In fact, I hate HP printers except lasers.
    > >
    > > If you are interested in printing larger than 8.5x11 then the only two
    > > choices are the Epson 2200 and the Canon9901. These run $400-500. All
    > these
    > > printers handle smaller papers well but you have to learn to make the
    > > correct settings to print on non-letter sized paper. They all have some
    > kind
    > > of adapter for 4x6 paper or roll paper that you may or may not find
    > useful.
    > > I prefer to use individual sheets of paper through the regular paper
    feed
    > > path.
    > >
    > > Another issue is ink based vs pigment based printers. Epson has largely
    > > converted to pigment based ink and printers spray an extra coating on
    > gloss
    > > papers in order to achieve a true gloss finish. This may or may not be
    an
    > > issue.
    > >
    > > I do not worry about archival life of prints: if one is selling prints
    > > professionally that is a real issue, but not for the rest of us as there
    > is
    > > no problem knocking out an identical print at any time. I have prints
    from
    > > my old Epson 700 that have hung in normally lit rooms for several years
    > with
    > > no fading.
    > >
    > > Printer models that have LED screens, accept memory cards, etc cost more
    > > than the equivalent printer without those doodads. I have no use for
    them
    > > and always run an image through Photoshop before printing.
    > >
    > > As such, after many years of using Epson printers, including the first
    > > genuine Epson 700 photoprinter (which still works), and still using my
    > Epson
    > > 1280 for larger prints, I have become partial to Canon printers. I
    think
    > > the Canon 960 is the greatest bargain out there: gorgeous, reliable
    color
    > > using a variety of paper types. It prints better on matte paper than any
    > > Epson (but if someone wants to give me a 2200 I will change my opinion
    > > instantly).
    > >
    > > If you are not interested in printing using color management skip the
    > rest:
    > >
    > > Although Canon only makes a few paper finishes, and therefore only
    > provides
    > > a few ICM profiles, with a very little experimentation their printers
    can
    > > use any paper out there with full color managment. Some independent
    paper
    > > makers, like Kodak, post instructions on how to modify printer driver
    > > settings for use with their papers that I have found very successful.
    > Epson
    > > papers print well generally using the comparable ICM settings for Canon
    > > papers. Right now I am looking at prints made on Epson Premium Luster
    > Photo
    > > Paper printed on both the Canon and the Epson: actually I don't have an
    > ICM
    > > profile for that paper for either printer but both print great using the
    > > settings for high quality glossy paper.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Epson - R300 - prints w/o PC from digital camera flash cards, as well as
    to CD-Rs.

    Or that RX500? series that has built-in flatbed & film scanner as well
    as photo printing.

    Epson has cheapest 4x6" glossy paper in 100pk vs. the other brands.

    --

    Canon - any 6+ color. Fastest photo inkjet printers in general vs. all
    other brands. ink carts tend to be the cheapest of the brands.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    If I had your budget I would get an Olympus P-400 dye sublimation
    printer. The current price is about $275. I have been suggesting this
    to my friends because the prints are the most permanent possible with
    currect technology.

    Sometimes people are confused by the specs on dye sublimation priters
    because they seem to have a lower number of pixels per inch. But each
    pixel is a full 24 bits color depth, so it can not be compared to the
    dots of a halftone screen printer such as inkjets. There is no
    halftone screen with a dye sublimation printer.

    I rarely see info on the Olympus (or smaller Canon dye subs) on the
    newsgroups so I thought I'd mention it. It is a photo-only printer,
    but text printers are available for $50 as a companion unit.


    On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:46:50 GMT, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
    <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:

    >I have been having trouble installing a HP Photosmart 7960 printer to
    >my WIN2K system (see my earlier posting, which has not yet been
    >responded to). It appears that my attempts to complete the
    >installation are going to fail and I am going to return the unit.
    >
    >Does anyone here recommend a substitute machine? I am looking for a
    >"prosumer" printer with which to print high-resolution digital
    >pictures up to 8 x 10 inches in size (but also able to easily print 4
    >x 6 and 5 x 7 prints, as well).
    >
    >The Canon and Epson machines seem decent, but what are the advantages
    >and disadvantages of each? My price range is up to about $300.00
    >(US).
    >
    >
    >Many thanks,
    >
    >Bob
    >
    >Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
    >Neurological Surgery
    >2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
    >Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
    >510-849-2555
    >
    >"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Robert A. Fink, M. D." <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ca8bf0dopgdoqeltj84s95kuo8od7m15gp@4ax.com>...
    > I have been having trouble installing a HP Photosmart 7960 printer to
    > my WIN2K system (see my earlier posting, which has not yet been
    > responded to). It appears that my attempts to complete the
    > installation are going to fail and I am going to return the unit.
    >
    > Does anyone here recommend a substitute machine? I am looking for a
    > "prosumer" printer with which to print high-resolution digital
    > pictures up to 8 x 10 inches in size (but also able to easily print 4
    > x 6 and 5 x 7 prints, as well).
    >
    > The Canon and Epson machines seem decent, but what are the advantages
    > and disadvantages of each? My price range is up to about $300.00

    Right now there's a great high quality bargain that'll give you more
    than you ask for.

    One to look at is the Canon i9100. It was Canon's top model a year
    ago, but it's price has been reduced substantially to move it to
    a lower price-point in their line of printers. It's now a $300
    printer (list) but will print up to 13" x 19" (I think) and do
    so at up to 4800 x 1200 dpi. Not as high as the new i9900, but
    still was thought very highly of pre-i9900.

    There are reviews around the web, google should find them easily
    enough.

    Mike
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,aus.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

    Georges Preddivous wrote:

    Same old stuff..

    Georges, have you ever responded to a questions and not crossposted it
    and indicated the one and only answer to everything from photo issue to
    medical problems requires the purchase of a Sigma product?


    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Photo HP Photosmart Peripherals