HP 8450 very disappointing

Started Jul 8, 2005 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Pepe-Lepue
Senior MemberPosts: 1,904Gear list
Like?
HP 8450 very disappointing
Jul 8, 2005

What is up w/ HP photo printing solutions?

I just bought the 8450 to perform my B&W prints (which it does a great job) which my Canon i9900 isn't as capable of doing. However after using the 8450, I never truly realized how cr@ppy the HP solution for photo prints really is.

In comparison to my i9900, the 8450's ONLY real advantage is B&W printing and possibly longer archival life of the prints.

Advantages of the Canon i9900 (and i8500) over 8450
It tears apart the 8450 in speed. The HP 8450 is S-L-O-W!!!

Handling of paper is performed more delicately than the 8450 (which seems to scratch any media other than HP brand paper).

HP prints STILL look like the inks are sitting on top of the paper. this is evident in the reflection. Canon on the other hand creates very fluid like prints that leave no distinguishable print outline textures on the paper's surface.

The canon system seems to print on all types of paper EXCEPT for HP brand paper. HP seems to only do well on HP paper (I haven't tried it on Epson paper yet however).

The HP paper curls after printing (and stays that way) whereas the Canon paper stays fairly flat.

OMG!!! The HP inks COST A FORTUNE for the measly amount you get. One must be a fool to choose HP as a primary photo print system over the much cheaper and more diverse Epson and Canon systems. The HP literally SUCKS these tricolor cartridges dry in no time at all.

It's obvious the tricolor cartridge disadvantage to separate tank systems. HOWEVER it is nice to have the heads easily replaced along w/ the ink on the HP systems.

The Canon papers can be handled directly after print. I noticed the HP stays "wet" for some time.

While I still use Canon inks, I love the after market refill ability of the Canon system (w/ the nice clear ink tanks).

HP STILL has chosen to not make their prints waterproof. My i9900 prints can be run under water w/out bleeding whatsoever.

The Canon produces marginally better prints IMHO. The i9900 blacks look DEEPLY BLACK while the HP looks a bit more murky.

I plan on keeping the HP for my B&W prints (even though the black looks "stenciled" on). I really like the total output of its B&W quality. HOWEVER I could never in my right mind use the HP system over the Canon one (or an Epson one at that) for color.

I'm not here to merely blindly bash HP. I am simply dismayed at the HP solution that will suck a mans wallet dry for what I clearly see as FAR inferior produced results to both the Epson and Canon photo printing solutions.

I love HP in the laser market particularly for business print/document solution. I just don't think it's a wise solution for those who print photos.

-- hide signature --

'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

http://www.pbase.com/domotang

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +4 more
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow