Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epsons, the only *photo* large format printers on the market

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 25, 2005 12:43:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market today
are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon) being
very good, but no more than poster printers, which at least according to one
contributor to this NG, is not the same?
Nobody
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:43:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE68E50E.15A0%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market today
> are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon) being
> very good, but no more than poster printers, which at least according to
> one
> contributor to this NG, is not the same?
> Nobody
>

Is it true that you beat your wife? According to one contributor, its true.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market
today
>are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon)
>being very good, but no more than poster printers ...

Most do-it-yourself pros are using Epsons but that's in large part
because Epson was first to market and are now entrenched solidly.
There's no reason HP or Canon printers can't do a good job as well,
though I've personally never seen a print from one (I use the Epson
4000). You might pose these questions on the Yahoo Groups, where
you'll probably find more actual users and possibly even some links to
test results. The EpsonWideFormat group is no doubt Epson-oriented but
you still might get some tips, also try the DigitalFineArt group, for
examples. I would still try to get actual prints for comparison before
plunking down my cash, as mentioned in earlier posts.

If you want to see reports from someone who hates Epsons and loves HP
and Canon (some say because they support his research) check out the
FLAAR Reports, such as this one ...
http://www.wide-format-printers.net/wideformatprintersf...

Bill
Related resources
March 25, 2005 11:30:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE68E50E.15A0%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market today
> are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon) being
> very good, but no more than poster printers, which at least according to
> one
> contributor to this NG, is not the same?
> Nobody
>
Yeah right... One contributor = weight of opinion. NOT!
March 25, 2005 11:30:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If there is only one opinion, it becomes very weighty... :-)


On 24/3/05 10:30 pm, in article 3agtbuF6arg54U1@individual.net, "Douglas"
<decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
> news:BE68E50E.15A0%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>> Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market today
>> are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon) being
>> very good, but no more than poster printers, which at least according to
>> one
>> contributor to this NG, is not the same?
>> Nobody
>>
> Yeah right... One contributor = weight of opinion. NOT!
>
>
March 25, 2005 3:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MAybe there's only one opinion you read. Doesn't mean it hasn't been done to
death in this and other groups until it just becomes a waste of breath
discussing it further.


"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE68F5C9.15CB%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> If there is only one opinion, it becomes very weighty... :-)
>
>
> On 24/3/05 10:30 pm, in article 3agtbuF6arg54U1@individual.net, "Douglas"
> <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
>> news:BE68E50E.15A0%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>>> Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market
>>> today
>>> are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon)
>>> being
>>> very good, but no more than poster printers, which at least according to
>>> one
>>> contributor to this NG, is not the same?
>>> Nobody
>>>
>> Yeah right... One contributor = weight of opinion. NOT!
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:40:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE68E50E.15A0%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market today
> are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon) being
> very good, but no more than poster printers, which at least according to
> one
> contributor to this NG, is not the same?
> Nobody
>

I've got two prints done on a HP Designjet 130 laying in front of me right
now. They sure look like photos to me! Maybe it is just a poster printer,
but it sure puts out some nice photo quality posters!!!
March 25, 2005 11:21:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks Bill, I did have an HP Designjet 30 demonstrated (they said that it
was identical in terms of image or print quality to the 130nr), and have
certain doubts: the resolution seemed inferior to the printer I am using now
(canon i9950). Personally, I don't buy the theory that one does need too
much detail when printing large format, because nobody would look at it from
2 inches away. I believe that texture etc. do require detail and resolution,
even in a large format print. Of course, it depends a lot on the subject,
this is only a general rule. May be the HP printer was not demonstrated
under the best conditions, may be I am doing it an injustice, any way, it is
all about personal preference, isn't it? I am now fantasizing about your
4000, which seems to have cured at least to some extent the slowness
problem. I wish they made it a few inches wider. The 7600 is really slow,
and not as good as the 4000, they say.
Nobody


On 25/3/05 4:06 pm, in article
1111766815.892478.210500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> Is it true that the only *photo* large format printers on the market
> today
>> are the Epsons (7600,9600) etc? The others (HP Designjet, or Canon)
>> being very good, but no more than poster printers ...
>
> Most do-it-yourself pros are using Epsons but that's in large part
> because Epson was first to market and are now entrenched solidly.
> There's no reason HP or Canon printers can't do a good job as well,
> though I've personally never seen a print from one (I use the Epson
> 4000). You might pose these questions on the Yahoo Groups, where
> you'll probably find more actual users and possibly even some links to
> test results. The EpsonWideFormat group is no doubt Epson-oriented but
> you still might get some tips, also try the DigitalFineArt group, for
> examples. I would still try to get actual prints for comparison before
> plunking down my cash, as mentioned in earlier posts.
>
> If you want to see reports from someone who hates Epsons and loves HP
> and Canon (some say because they support his research) check out the
> FLAAR Reports, such as this one ...
> http://www.wide-format-printers.net/wideformatprintersf...
> orspanlargeprints.php3
>
> Bill
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 2:38:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Canon is a tough act to follow IMHO. Now that I have ironed out the
wrinkles, I'm very pleased with the output. I used to be a devout Epson
user, but the economy of the Canon just had to be considered. Like most
printers it has to be fed the right paper, for me, I am lucky that I can
still use my original paper stock.

John D

www.highlanddreams.com

>the resolution seemed inferior to the printer I am using now
> (canon i9950). >
March 26, 2005 4:01:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What Canon are you using? I agree that the i9950 is very good, but it is
not a large format printer. Have you tried any recent 24" Canon?


On 26/3/05 11:38 am, in article d23hkc$ui2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, "John DH"
<nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote:

> The Canon is a tough act to follow IMHO. Now that I have ironed out the
> wrinkles, I'm very pleased with the output. I used to be a devout Epson
> user, but the economy of the Canon just had to be considered. Like most
> printers it has to be fed the right paper, for me, I am lucky that I can
> still use my original paper stock.
>
> John D
>
> www.highlanddreams.com
>
>> the resolution seemed inferior to the printer I am using now
>> (canon i9950). >
>
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:22:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry, I use the i9950 as well at the moment. Looking to equip with wide
format later this year.

John D
"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE6B0DBE.1998%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> What Canon are you using? I agree that the i9950 is very good, but it is
> not a large format printer. Have you tried any recent 24" Canon?
>
>
> On 26/3/05 11:38 am, in article d23hkc$ui2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, "John
DH"
> <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote:
>
> > The Canon is a tough act to follow IMHO. Now that I have ironed out the
> > wrinkles, I'm very pleased with the output. I used to be a devout Epson
> > user, but the economy of the Canon just had to be considered. Like most
> > printers it has to be fed the right paper, for me, I am lucky that I can
> > still use my original paper stock.
> >
> > John D
> >
> > www.highlanddreams.com
> >
> >> the resolution seemed inferior to the printer I am using now
> >> (canon i9950). >
> >
> >
>
March 27, 2005 2:55:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you do any research, or come to some conclusions, please post an article.
Epson 4000 is "nearly" large format, but not quite there. The other
"candidates" for 24" are the HP Designjet 130nr and the Canon W6200. I had
a kind of demonstration for both, which was not very conclusive, and may be
did not do justice to either printer, only God knows. HP has 2400 dpi and 6
colours; Canon 6200 has only 1200 dpi, and also 6 colours. The latter is
phenomenally fast, but this is not everything, is it? By contrast, the
Epson 7600 has 2800 dpi and 7 colours (the 9600 is 44" and this is going too
far, at least for me...). I don't think that there are other 24" printers
at this level. Bill has very kindly referred me to various newsgroups, but
again, I read a few articles, and am none the wiser.
Nobody


On 26/3/05 6:22 pm, in article d2498i$gqg$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, "John DH"
<nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote:

> Sorry, I use the i9950 as well at the moment. Looking to equip with wide
> format later this year.
>
> John D
> "nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
> news:BE6B0DBE.1998%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>> What Canon are you using? I agree that the i9950 is very good, but it is
>> not a large format printer. Have you tried any recent 24" Canon?
>>
>>
>> On 26/3/05 11:38 am, in article d23hkc$ui2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, "John
> DH"
>> <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote:
>>
>>> The Canon is a tough act to follow IMHO. Now that I have ironed out the
>>> wrinkles, I'm very pleased with the output. I used to be a devout Epson
>>> user, but the economy of the Canon just had to be considered. Like most
>>> printers it has to be fed the right paper, for me, I am lucky that I can
>>> still use my original paper stock.
>>>
>>> John D
>>>
>>> www.highlanddreams.com
>>>
>>>> the resolution seemed inferior to the printer I am using now
>>>> (canon i9950). >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:06:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Douglas writes ...
>>
>>For me the decider was the running costs and the 24" width of the HP.
A
>>full load of long haul inks for the Epson is just about half the cost
of a new
>>Designjet 130 WITH full ink tanks!

> Tom Scales writes ...
>
>Can you cite why you think an HP in the size of an Epson 7600 is
cheaper
> to operate. ... Easy to say on usenet, but a stronger argument with
cites.

I don't know the ink costs per square ft of the HP, but I have an Epson
4000 which gives detailed info on ink and paper usage and I think the
7600 has similar ink costs ... I recently printed 23 11x14" prints for
a museum show and according to the monitor the printer drank 43 ml of
ink, or less than 2 ml per print. You can buy the 220 ml carts for $84
or 38 cents/ml or 110 ml carts for $56 or 51 cents/ml so the ink costs
for these 23 prints averaged either 71 cents or 95 cents, depending on
the cart size. Pretty cheap compared to the price of paper or matting,
especially when you consider how much you can sell one for, which is
lot more than what a poster goes for (Douglas' market). The carts are
relatively expensive but then they have a lot of ink in them too. At
the ink rates I'm getting you can print over 350 11x14" prints on a set
of 110 ml carts, for example, over 700 with the larger carts.

If you extrapolate this to 16x20" prints the ink cost is either $1.49
or $1.99 depending on the size of ink cart. If you have a market for
your 16x20" fine art prints at say $150 per print then you probably
consider 2 bucks for ink a great bargain.

>I'm also interest in your drivers/profiles reference as everything
>I can find shows superior profile support for the Epsons as well as
good
>drivers + 3rd party rips.

There's no doubt that the Epsons have much better support for these
items, largely because the market is so big for them. Makes life
easier for the fine art printer. Maybe what's important to the
individual boils down to whether you are printing posters or making
fine art prints?

Bill
March 27, 2005 3:46:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE6B98F6.1A70%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> If you do any research, or come to some conclusions, please post an
> article.
> Epson 4000 is "nearly" large format, but not quite there. The other
> "candidates" for 24" are the HP Designjet 130nr and the Canon W6200. I
> had
> a kind of demonstration for both, which was not very conclusive, and may
> be
> did not do justice to either printer, only God knows. HP has 2400 dpi and
> 6
> colours; Canon 6200 has only 1200 dpi, and also 6 colours. The latter is
> phenomenally fast, but this is not everything, is it? By contrast, the
> Epson 7600 has 2800 dpi and 7 colours (the 9600 is 44" and this is going
> too
> far, at least for me...). I don't think that there are other 24" printers
> at this level. Bill has very kindly referred me to various newsgroups,
> but
> again, I read a few articles, and am none the wiser.
> Nobody
>

I did research about this time last year. The Epson 4000 was just arriving
in Australia and although Epson themselves had given over the distribution
rights to a Photographic supplier, I was still able to get some prints from
my own files from it. HP designjet 130 was the only alternative and at half
the cost of the Epson, I was concerned it might produce poorer quality
images.

I sent my test file - basically pastels and fine detail to HP and they
produced a 13"x19" print from it and mailed it back to me within a week at
no charge. I used the same file but because the Epson distributor also
distributed Canson papers, they printed it on Canson archival matte paper.
The difference between HP's Photo Satin and Canson's Matte paper is
substantial. I dare anyone to tell which print came from which printer
without knowing the details.

For me the decider was the running costs and the 24" width of the HP. A full
load of long haul inks for the Epson is just about half the cost of a new
Designjet 130 WITH full ink tanks! I really like the 24" width printing and
now I have just replaced the print heads, the real value of the HP is
evident. You simply can't change the print heads in a Epson as fast or as
cheaply as the HP.

Another Photographer in the same building as my studio has an Epson 4000 and
we both agree there is not enough in the print quality to make a call as to
which is better. It costs me $300 AUD for a full set of ink tanks. The Epson
costs $690 AUD for the low yield tanks or $1200 AUD for high yield tanks. I
can print about 40 posters before getting a low ink warning and another 20
before the printer stops and waits for the first empty tank to be changed.

One point I think has not been explored is the running cost of these
printers. I just ordered a 52" HP designjet to supplement the 24" ones. The
running costs were my only criteria of choice compared to the Epson and of
course I passed over the Canon range because of their ink life problems.
Some people might charge enough that the cost of ink per poster print is not
an issue but when 2 sets of tanks for one printer will buy you an
alternative printer with ink... Epson will need to get their shop in order
real soon if they expect to ward off the HP invasion into their market. I
have owned my last Epson and not for any other reason than their cost no
longer can be justified in the quality of their output.

Douglas
March 27, 2005 3:46:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Epson prints are waterproof and a tiny bit better quality but HP's
are very close in quality, more affordable to operate and better
machines overall including drivers and profiles for various different
papers. Having smooth predictable performance on any paper I think will
overcome slightly cleaner prints. If price, mechanics and convenience
are no object I suppose the Epsons are a bit better.


Douglas wrote:

> "nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
> news:BE6B98F6.1A70%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>
>>If you do any research, or come to some conclusions, please post an
>>article.
>>Epson 4000 is "nearly" large format, but not quite there. The other
>>"candidates" for 24" are the HP Designjet 130nr and the Canon W6200. I
>>had
>>a kind of demonstration for both, which was not very conclusive, and may
>>be
>>did not do justice to either printer, only God knows. HP has 2400 dpi and
>>6
>>colours; Canon 6200 has only 1200 dpi, and also 6 colours. The latter is
>>phenomenally fast, but this is not everything, is it? By contrast, the
>>Epson 7600 has 2800 dpi and 7 colours (the 9600 is 44" and this is going
>>too
>>far, at least for me...). I don't think that there are other 24" printers
>>at this level. Bill has very kindly referred me to various newsgroups,
>>but
>>again, I read a few articles, and am none the wiser.
>>Nobody
>>
>
>
> I did research about this time last year. The Epson 4000 was just arriving
> in Australia and although Epson themselves had given over the distribution
> rights to a Photographic supplier, I was still able to get some prints from
> my own files from it. HP designjet 130 was the only alternative and at half
> the cost of the Epson, I was concerned it might produce poorer quality
> images.
>
> I sent my test file - basically pastels and fine detail to HP and they
> produced a 13"x19" print from it and mailed it back to me within a week at
> no charge. I used the same file but because the Epson distributor also
> distributed Canson papers, they printed it on Canson archival matte paper.
> The difference between HP's Photo Satin and Canson's Matte paper is
> substantial. I dare anyone to tell which print came from which printer
> without knowing the details.
>
> For me the decider was the running costs and the 24" width of the HP. A full
> load of long haul inks for the Epson is just about half the cost of a new
> Designjet 130 WITH full ink tanks! I really like the 24" width printing and
> now I have just replaced the print heads, the real value of the HP is
> evident. You simply can't change the print heads in a Epson as fast or as
> cheaply as the HP.
>
> Another Photographer in the same building as my studio has an Epson 4000 and
> we both agree there is not enough in the print quality to make a call as to
> which is better. It costs me $300 AUD for a full set of ink tanks. The Epson
> costs $690 AUD for the low yield tanks or $1200 AUD for high yield tanks. I
> can print about 40 posters before getting a low ink warning and another 20
> before the printer stops and waits for the first empty tank to be changed.
>
> One point I think has not been explored is the running cost of these
> printers. I just ordered a 52" HP designjet to supplement the 24" ones. The
> running costs were my only criteria of choice compared to the Epson and of
> course I passed over the Canon range because of their ink life problems.
> Some people might charge enough that the cost of ink per poster print is not
> an issue but when 2 sets of tanks for one printer will buy you an
> alternative printer with ink... Epson will need to get their shop in order
> real soon if they expect to ward off the HP invasion into their market. I
> have owned my last Epson and not for any other reason than their cost no
> longer can be justified in the quality of their output.
>
> Douglas
>
>
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Can you cite why you think an HP in the size of an Epson 7600 is cheaper to
operate. I'm also interest in your drivers/profiles reference as everything
I can find shows superior profile support for the Epsons as well as good
drivers + 3rd party rips.

Easy to say on usenet, but a stronger argument with cites.
"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:4LCdnTYdPqdCzNvfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> The Epson prints are waterproof and a tiny bit better quality but HP's are
> very close in quality, more affordable to operate and better machines
> overall including drivers and profiles for various different papers.
> Having smooth predictable performance on any paper I think will overcome
> slightly cleaner prints. If price, mechanics and convenience are no object
> I suppose the Epsons are a bit better.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:54:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:54:53 GMT, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net>
wrote:

>Can you cite why you think an HP in the size of an Epson 7600 is cheaper to
>operate. I'm also interest in your drivers/profiles reference as everything
>I can find shows superior profile support for the Epsons as well as good
>drivers + 3rd party rips.


Epsons have had the lead for years among
photographers and fine artists. In that
category, HP is playing catch-up. At the
moment, you'll find better third-party
support (inks, RIPs, etc) for Epsons than
any other brand of inkjet.

By all accounts, including personal
experience, the newest HPs (Desgnjet
30/130 in particular) are much more
frugal with ink.)

What I don't know is if any of the more
reputable ink vendors sell compatible
ink carts for these new HPs.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 27, 2005 5:54:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:4LCdnTYdPqdCzNvfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
>
>>The Epson prints are waterproof and a tiny bit better quality but
HP's are
>>very close in quality, more affordable to operate and better machines
>>overall including drivers and profiles for various different papers.
>>Having smooth predictable performance on any paper I think will overcome
>>slightly cleaner prints. If price, mechanics and convenience are no
object
>>I suppose the Epsons are a bit better.
>
>
>

Tom Scales wrote:

> Can you cite why you think an HP in the size of an Epson 7600 is
> cheaper to operate. I'm also interest in your drivers/profiles
> reference as everything I can find shows superior profile support for
> the Epsons as well as good drivers + 3rd party rips.
>
> Easy to say on usenet, but a stronger argument with cites.


Sorry, no cites, just what I recall reading in my own descision process
for the 11x17 size printers not the size you mention but HP has been
doing large plotters for a long time, I've used them for years for CAD
drafting & they are very reliable performers for demanding professional
work. Just my opinion that HP makes a more solidly designed workhorse
type of machine with a less fiddly interface, solid hardware, paper
grips, etc. I don't claim to be an undisputed expert though. Lots of
things in the drivers like being able to cancel a print mid-way works
smoothly with HP's where other printers give you headaches like having
to pull the plug & reboot the computer to clear the cache. Lots of
little things like that. I haven't used a high end Epson though. I
believe you will have more choice of affordable papers with profiles
available with an HP and with Epson, you'll need to use their paper, I
could be mistaken.


Heh... OK I searched a bit because I'm in the market now too. I'll admit
I had to dig through a lot Epson praise <grin>. My experience is with a
newish cheap Epson C80 that I'm not fond of & older large HP plotters &
various others, not the newer nicer models from either brand. I looked
into 11x17's a couple years ago for CAD plotting & people I respected
said the HP's were very reliable workhorses.


<http://www.photoshopuser.com/napmem/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?...;f=10;t=000123>
"I have used the Epson Stylus Color 1520 & the Epson Stylus Pro 5000
(replaced now by the 5500). And while I think the prints were beautiful,
the printers were a little... rickety? The paper trays did not survive
frequent handling too well; plastic parts always seemed to be cracking
off/snapping. My 1520 has a stapler holding up the paper tray from
underneath, otherwise the paper does not feed correctly.

-The HP 932C I have at home seems more durable. The (B/W) HP LaserJet
8000 we have in an office of 8 people has held up remarkably for the
volume we send to it. I mean, we beat that thing up"

<http://www.zuga.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-1005.htm...;
"Epson are great printers but are more finiky and not as reliable and
take more tinkering to keep working etc...
but in the under $1000 market they have the best photo printer out there
the 2200

now for photo printing and all around printing HP still makes a better
printer in my book and many other people agree

it is what you want to do with your printer

%100 photos the 2200 will give you the best quality but will take a bit
more maintenance
Ink loss take a look at the Epson Diaper they do waste a lot of ink.
that said I am waiting for next gen of printers from both sides before I
go inhome printing


if you are doing around %75 photos and a few others I would take the HP
it still does amazing photos and does other tasks very well and tends to
take less maintenance."

And I'm sure you will believe this unbiased comparison <grin>
<http://www.hp.com/sbso/assets/expert/competitive_DJ130v...;
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Paul writes ...
>
>just what I recall reading in my own descision process
>for the 11x17 size printers

The last Epson 11x17" printer was the Stylus Photo EX, I owned one in I
think 1997 or 1998, so your information is long out of date.

>HP has been doing large plotters for a long time, I've used them for
>years for CAD drafting

We also used HP LaserJets for business and for plotters (also Calma),
but that's a totally different market. HP has trailed Epson in the
photo-quality printer market from the beginning and were slow to react.

> I haven't used a high end Epson though. I
>believe you will have more choice of affordable papers with profiles
>available with an HP

Can you name a respected 3rd party paper that comes with HP (or Canon)
profiles but doesn't have Epson profile support? I doubt it, since
Epson has a much larger market share and paper companies know it. Here
are two examples of high quality photo papers supplying profiles,
Arches Infinity and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag ... plenty of Epson support
but very little for HP or Canon ...

http://www.hahnemuhle.com/icm11be.nsf/(html)/FramesetFineArt ...
profiles for all Epson Ultrachromes, no HP profiles, one Canon (W6200)

http://www.archesinfinity.com/flash_index.htm seven Epson printers
supported, one HP (5000), no Canons ...

>and with Epson, you'll need to use their paper, I
>could be mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken. There is a wide range of 3rd party papers
available for the Epson Ultrachome printers. On the other hand to get
the 75-80 year print life from the HP dye ink printers you must use a
small subset of papers.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:46:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:iqudnS5L2bFikNrfRVn-ug@speakeasy.net...
> > "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> > news:4LCdnTYdPqdCzNvfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
> >

All anecdotal, of course, and the Epson was three generations ago. I'm sure
HP makes fine printers, but there has to be a reason that Epson dominates
the wide format market (OK, I admit, I am an Epson 7600 owner). I find it
very reliable.

Tom
March 28, 2005 12:46:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:iqudnS5L2bFikNrfRVn-ug@speakeasy.net...
>
>>>"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4LCdnTYdPqdCzNvfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>
>
> All anecdotal, of course, and the Epson was three generations ago. I'm sure
> HP makes fine printers, but there has to be a reason that Epson dominates
> the wide format market (OK, I admit, I am an Epson 7600 owner). I find it
> very reliable.


I haven't been happy with my cheap old Epson C80 but it's a cheapie.
Then there's our 15 year ancient Canon BJ 200 that still works fine
<grin>. I just dread the idea of a finicky printer having wasted so much
time dealing with printing problems at work over the years. And I'm more
inclined toward something that's affordable to operate so I can afford
to use it, I don't expect to sell anything, if I do, I'll probably send
out.

I'll admit I found a whole lot more anecdotes from happy Epson customers
when searching just now.
!