HP versus Epson

[Stephen Levine]

I have been a dedicated HP inkjet user since the very first HP Desk writer for DOS with interchangeable font cartridges. I no own three HP inkjets: HP 970C, HP2000C, and HP2500C. As all arount text and graphics printers the 2000 series cannot be beat for speed, versatility, and price/performance. The 970C is also a very good general printer and--I thought--an unsurpassed photo printer.

The one fly in the ointment was print longevity. I was particularly unnerved by the Wilhelm Research findings that no combination of HP ink and paper was recommended for long term display (or even storage). For this reason I was motivated to buy the Epson 1270, which has been rated highly for print longevity.

After two days of experimentation, I must report that to my eye there is a substantial difference in quality between the HP 970C and the Epson, the Epson being superior in resolution (i.e., absence of visible dots) and in providing a more "photographic" look versus the "layered" look from the HP. While I will continue to use my HP printers as business and graphics printers, I will use the Epson for all my photo printers from this point forward.

 

[Kirk17095]

I have been a dedicated Epson inkjet user. I own three Epson inkjets: Epson 750, Epson 1200, Epson 1270. The Epson Series cannot be beat for speed, versatility and price/perfomance. The 750 is also a good general printer and-I thought-an unsurpassed photo printer.

I then bought the HP 1100 which was highly rated for quality printing for both text and photos. After two days of experimentation, I must report that to my eye there is a substantial difference in quality between the Epson 750 and the HP, the HP being superior in resolution, and in providing a more "photographic" look versus the look from the Epson. While I will continue to use my Epson printers as business and graphics printers, I will use the HP for all my photos from this point on.

How about that SL?

I have been a dedicated HP inkjet user since the very first HP Desk
writer for DOS with interchangeable font cartridges. I no own three HP
inkjets: HP 970C, HP2000C, and HP2500C. As all arount text and graphics
printers the 2000 series cannot be beat for speed, versatility, and
price/performance. The 970C is also a very good general printer and--I
thought--an unsurpassed photo printer.
The one fly in the ointment was print longevity. I was particularly
unnerved by the Wilhelm Research findings that no combination of HP ink
and paper was recommended for long term display (or even storage). For
this reason I was motivated to buy the Epson 1270, which has been rated
highly for print longevity.
After two days of experimentation, I must report that to my eye there is
a substantial difference in quality between the HP 970C and the Epson,
the Epson being superior in resolution (i.e., absence of visible dots)
and in providing a more "photographic" look versus the "layered" look
from the HP. While I will continue to use my HP printers as business and
graphics printers, I will use the Epson for all my photo printers from
this point forward.

 

[Ron Baker]

I have been a long term Epson user and I started with the 750. I upgraded to the 1200 and like Kirk, read about the superior output of the HP 1100. Keep in mind that I loved my Epson but I just had to know because I wanted the best. So, I bought an HP 1100 and the HP photo paper. I did a side by side compariosn with multiple type pictures taken with an OLY 2000. I had my family look at about 13 sets of pictures and in every instance except one they chose the Epson prints. I took the best of the the HP prints to an HP fan at Comp USA and asked her to choose the best prints...She cose Epson and further commented "I thought they'd be a lot closer, HP STILL has some work to do!"

How about THAT Kirk????

Ron

How about that SL?

I have been a dedicated HP inkjet user since the very first HP Desk
writer for DOS with interchangeable font cartridges. I no own three HP
inkjets: HP 970C, HP2000C, and HP2500C. As all arount text and graphics
printers the 2000 series cannot be beat for speed, versatility, and
price/performance. The 970C is also a very good general printer and--I
thought--an unsurpassed photo printer.
The one fly in the ointment was print longevity. I was particularly
unnerved by the Wilhelm Research findings that no combination of HP ink
and paper was recommended for long term display (or even storage). For
this reason I was motivated to buy the Epson 1270, which has been rated
highly for print longevity.
After two days of experimentation, I must report that to my eye there is
a substantial difference in quality between the HP 970C and the Epson,
the Epson being superior in resolution (i.e., absence of visible dots)
and in providing a more "photographic" look versus the "layered" look
from the HP. While I will continue to use my HP printers as business and
graphics printers, I will use the Epson for all my photo printers from
this point forward.

 

[Warren]

I have been a long term Epson user and I started with the 750. I
upgraded to the 1200 and like Kirk, read about the superior output of the
HP 1100. Keep in mind that I loved my Epson but I just had to know
because I wanted the best. So, I bought an HP 1100 and the HP photo
paper. I did a side by side compariosn with multiple type pictures taken
with an OLY 2000. I had my family look at about 13 sets of pictures and
in every instance except one they chose the Epson prints. I took the
best of the the HP prints to an HP fan at Comp USA and asked her to
choose the best prints...She cose Epson and further commented "I thought
they'd be a lot closer, HP STILL has some work to do!"

How about THAT Kirk????

Ron

Now I'm really getting confused. I keep hearing pros and cons on these two printers. I'm primarily interested in Photo Quality. What I've read about on the HP 1100 has been really good but I want at least 13 x 19 output. Does anyone have any information as to the comparison between the HP and Epson in that size printing (photo) and if neither of these are good at that size then for 8 x 10 would the tektronics Phaser dry ink system be superior to the injets. I know it's a totally different printer and much much more expensive but I'm trying to get the best. Oh and this isn't for a real business yet. Just an out of control hobby that is semi-self-supporting.
Thanks
Warren

 

[Ron Baker]

I have been a long term Epson user and I started with the 750. I
upgraded to the 1200 and like Kirk, read about the superior output of the
HP 1100. Keep in mind that I loved my Epson but I just had to know
because I wanted the best. So, I bought an HP 1100 and the HP photo
paper. I did a side by side compariosn with multiple type pictures taken
with an OLY 2000. I had my family look at about 13 sets of pictures and
in every instance except one they chose the Epson prints. I took the
best of the the HP prints to an HP fan at Comp USA and asked her to
choose the best prints...She cose Epson and further commented "I thought
they'd be a lot closer, HP STILL has some work to do!"

How about THAT Kirk????

Ron

Now I'm really getting confused. I keep hearing pros and cons on these
two printers. I'm primarily interested in Photo Quality. What I've read
about on the HP 1100 has been really good but I want at least 13 x 19
output. Does anyone have any information as to the comparison between the
HP and Epson in that size printing (photo) and if neither of these are
good at that size then for 8 x 10 would the tektronics Phaser dry ink
system be superior to the injets. I know it's a totally different printer
and much much more expensive but I'm trying to get the best. Oh and this
isn't for a real business yet. Just an out of control hobby that is
semi-self-supporting.
Thanks
Warren

Warren,

There's no need to be confused, honest! Get yourself an Epson 1270 and be happy! Besides, the HP 1100 will not print anything larger than 8 x 10. The 1200 and the 1270 will.

Regards and good luck!

Ron

 

[Kirk17095]

Ron,

You are right about the output size of these printers. But you forgot to reveal to Warren the main problem of Epsons. HEAD CLOGGING! So he needs the good luck you wished him.

Except if he wants to get armed with all those remedies suggested in the past by various Epson owners, such as a hairdryer to liquify the thickened ink as suggested by a friend , dinner wipes (of the lemon scent)as suggested by another owner, or even a Master's Degree in Engineering as suggested by an apparent Printer Service Center and many more . Warren does't have to go any further that to look carefully in the previous threads. Good luck Warren indeed!

I have been a long term Epson user and I started with the 750. I
upgraded to the 1200 and like Kirk, read about the superior output of the
HP 1100. Keep in mind that I loved my Epson but I just had to know
because I wanted the best. So, I bought an HP 1100 and the HP photo
paper. I did a side by side compariosn with multiple type pictures taken
with an OLY 2000. I had my family look at about 13 sets of pictures and
in every instance except one they chose the Epson prints. I took the
best of the the HP prints to an HP fan at Comp USA and asked her to
choose the best prints...She cose Epson and further commented "I thought
they'd be a lot closer, HP STILL has some work to do!"

How about THAT Kirk????

Ron

Now I'm really getting confused. I keep hearing pros and cons on these
two printers. I'm primarily interested in Photo Quality. What I've read
about on the HP 1100 has been really good but I want at least 13 x 19
output. Does anyone have any information as to the comparison between the
HP and Epson in that size printing (photo) and if neither of these are
good at that size then for 8 x 10 would the tektronics Phaser dry ink
system be superior to the injets. I know it's a totally different printer
and much much more expensive but I'm trying to get the best. Oh and this
isn't for a real business yet. Just an out of control hobby that is
semi-self-supporting.
Thanks
Warren

Warren,

There's no need to be confused, honest! Get yourself an Epson 1270
and be happy! Besides, the HP 1100 will not print anything larger than
8 x 10. The 1200 and the 1270 will.

Regards and good luck!

Ron

 

[Peter14699]

Ron,
You are right about the output size of these printers. But you forgot to
reveal to Warren the main problem of Epsons. HEAD CLOGGING! So he needs
the good luck you wished him.

Good Lord. What kind of an answer is that. I bought a printer based on the fact I needed to make prints larger than 8X10 and wanted photo quality. That would be an Epson, it's a no brainer. The previous post asked about large prints. What would you do with your HP, scotch-tape some prints together and pretend you have a large-format printer. You make it sound like no one should be allowed to make larger prints because only the HP is worthy of being owned.That should give you a lot of credibility.
Peter

 

[greg14151]

Ron,
You are right about the output size of these printers. But you forgot to
reveal to Warren the main problem of Epsons. HEAD CLOGGING! So he needs
the good luck you wished him.
Except if he wants to get armed with all those remedies suggested in the
past by various Epson owners, such as a hairdryer to liquify the
thickened ink as suggested by a friend , dinner wipes (of the lemon
scent)as suggested by another owner, or even a Master's Degree in
Engineering as suggested by an apparent Printer Service Center and many
more . Warren does't have to go any further that to look carefully in the
previous threads. Good luck Warren indeed!

Kirk,
enough already!

how can you make a comment on a new printer you have not tried yourself. wouldn't it be fair to give it a chance? I have never seen results of this quality from any brand printer. matter of fact, i dropped a picture in the wet sink. i wiped it off to perfection. the new inks are water resistant! all i ask is that you give it a chance. go to comp usa and oberve them. you will be transformed! this printer is light years ahead of the 750!
greg

I have been a long term Epson user and I started with the 750. I
upgraded to the 1200 and like Kirk, read about the superior output of the
HP 1100. Keep in mind that I loved my Epson but I just had to know
because I wanted the best. So, I bought an HP 1100 and the HP photo
paper. I did a side by side compariosn with multiple type pictures taken
with an OLY 2000. I had my family look at about 13 sets of pictures and
in every instance except one they chose the Epson prints. I took the
best of the the HP prints to an HP fan at Comp USA and asked her to
choose the best prints...She cose Epson and further commented "I thought
they'd be a lot closer, HP STILL has some work to do!"

How about THAT Kirk????

Ron

Now I'm really getting confused. I keep hearing pros and cons on these
two printers. I'm primarily interested in Photo Quality. What I've read
about on the HP 1100 has been really good but I want at least 13 x 19
output. Does anyone have any information as to the comparison between the
HP and Epson in that size printing (photo) and if neither of these are
good at that size then for 8 x 10 would the tektronics Phaser dry ink
system be superior to the injets. I know it's a totally different printer
and much much more expensive but I'm trying to get the best. Oh and this
isn't for a real business yet. Just an out of control hobby that is
semi-self-supporting.
Thanks
Warren

Warren,

There's no need to be confused, honest! Get yourself an Epson 1270
and be happy! Besides, the HP 1100 will not print anything larger than
8 x 10. The 1200 and the 1270 will.

Regards and good luck!

Ron

 

[Kirk17095]

Get the HP 1220 for larger prints and at the same time savour its outstanding text printing and the outstanding reliability of the HPs (both not found with Epson). You change printheads each and every time you change the ink cartidges. No $50 for unclogging them professionally, no photo printing every day even if you don't have, in order to keep the heads primed, no bewitching methods to clean them up as many have suggested in the forum, no stress for an otherwise pleasant hobby.

When and if Epson proves that has solved at least the clogging problem, I will never consider buying one. Color fastness is a plus if also proved true.

Ron,
You are right about the output size of these printers. But you forgot to
reveal to Warren the main problem of Epsons. HEAD CLOGGING! So he needs
the good luck you wished him.

Good Lord. What kind of an answer is that. I bought a printer based on
the fact I needed to make prints larger than 8X10 and wanted photo
quality. That would be an Epson, it's a no brainer. The previous post
asked about large prints. What would you do with your HP, scotch-tape
some prints together and pretend you have a large-format printer. You
make it sound like no one should be allowed to make larger prints because
only the HP is worthy of being owned.That should give you a lot of
credibility.
Peter

 

[Leon Wittwer]

Despite many messages by Kirk regarding head clogging, there have been no support for his position as to the seriousness of this problem. Indeed, my experience with 6 different Epson printers (Stylus Color, 800, Stylus Photo, Stylus Photo 700, Stylus Photo 1200, Stylus Photo 1270 (got it last Wednesday)) has indicated no significant problems. All indications are that if you follow directions, you will do well with Epson printers. Regarding reliablility, none of my printers have been in the shop. I am not in any way associated with Epson except for being a happy customer. By the way, the last few Epson Photo printers go out to 44 inches. Do the HP printers do that?

Ron,
You are right about the output size of these printers. But you forgot to
reveal to Warren the main problem of Epsons. HEAD CLOGGING! So he needs
the good luck you wished him.

Good Lord. What kind of an answer is that. I bought a printer based on
the fact I needed to make prints larger than 8X10 and wanted photo
quality. That would be an Epson, it's a no brainer. The previous post
asked about large prints. What would you do with your HP, scotch-tape
some prints together and pretend you have a large-format printer. You
make it sound like no one should be allowed to make larger prints because
only the HP is worthy of being owned.That should give you a lot of
credibility.
Peter

 

[Leon Wittwer]

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com .

 

[Ron Parr]

Despite many messages by Kirk regarding head clogging, there have been no
support for his position as to the seriousness of this problem. Indeed,
my experience with 6 different Epson printers (Stylus Color, 800, Stylus
Photo, Stylus Photo 700, Stylus Photo 1200, Stylus Photo 1270 (got it
last Wednesday)) has indicated no significant problems. All indications
are that if you follow directions, you will do well with Epson printers.
Regarding reliablility, none of my printers have been in the shop. I am
not in any way associated with Epson except for being a happy customer.
By the way, the last few Epson Photo printers go out to 44 inches. Do
the HP printers do that?

Um, let's be reasonable here. There are lots of posts in this newsgroup from people with clogging problems. You can't simply dismiss this.

I treated my Stylus 800 very well and I still got some very annoying clogs. Even if it were the case that the printer would never clog if you turned it off properly, it's still a design flaw to produce a product that can be so easily damaged by power failures.

Now, I don't think the clogging problem is as severe as some have portrayed it to be. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate concern that should not simply be dismissed by those who have been fortunate enough never to experience clogs themselves.

Ron Parr

 

[Kirk17095]

I was honest to acknowledge the color fastness of the new Epsons, IF it proves to be true. I strongly believe that HP is working on this already, so very soon this will not be a problem for HP as well.

Now those few who want to go out to 44 inches let them buy the Epson, but let's concentrate on specs that will be used by most and problems that will be faced by those too. Sorry to come back to it, but hair dryers, and dinner whipes are ridiculous ways to face the clogging problem and I wonder why Epson is allowing these things to stain its name. Give the new Epsons a 6 month grace period and then we will see. But do not start exalting them as the only super printers out there! Get landed please.

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com .

 

[Terry F.]

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com .

I recently purchased a new Epson 1270 it was through this forum and all these threads that I chose the Epson. I have been enjoying photography for the past 22 years with that much time in my darkroom. And after seeing the results from the 1270 and 8 by 10 prints I made in my darkroom, this is one remarkable printer, and my brother-in-law says the same thing, his only regret now is he wishes he waited for the 875. (He purchased the HP P-1000 when it first came out for the ability to insert your flash card and boom instant picture.) The point is he was happy with what he bought and proud of his decision. Just like I'am, So when your ribbing a guy or gal over their choices your also ribbing their intelligence. I can say one thing though we did our own little side by side test we both have Nikon 950's and we both took pictures of the same exact thing and we let the wives and sisters and brothers judge the pictures and more people chose the way the Epson pictures looked than the HP we also both used Glossy Paper and did no imaging enhancing.

 

[Ron Baker]

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com .

I recently purchased a new Epson 1270 it was through this forum and all these threads that I chose the Epson. I have been enjoying photography for the past 22 years with that much time in my darkroom. And after seeing the results from the 1270 and 8 by 10 prints I made in my darkroom, this is one remarkable printer, and my brother-in-law says the same thing, his only regret now is he wishes he waited for the 875. (He purchased the HP P-1000 when it first came out for the ability to insert your flash card and boom instant picture.) The point is he was happy with what he bought and proud of his decision. Just like I'am, So when your ribbing a guy or gal over their choices your also ribbing their intelligence. I can say one thing though we did our own little side by side test we both have Nikon 950's and we both took pictures of the same exact thing and we let the wives and sisters and brothers judge the pictures and more people chose the way the Epson pictures looked than the HP we also both used Glossy Paper and did no imaging enhancing.

I believe we could go round and round on the the subject of printers - HP vs Epson. I cannot and have not ever said that HP was a bad printer. In fact, HP is a great printer. I, and everyone I showed pictures to coming off the Epson vs the HP chose the Epson. That is a simple fact. The same can be said of most any choice one makes- you evaluate the data and make a selection. The final call is up to you, the buyer. I cannot say that Epson is without weaknesses but in the final analysis, what was most important to me was superior picture quality and that's what I get with Epson. Likewise, I own a Nikon 950 and have owned the OLY 2000 and OLY 2500. Even though the Nikon is notorious for red-eye, I STILL prefer it because of other features it has that satisfy me. I am willing to deal with the red-eye using an external flash. So in the end, do whats right for you!

Ron Baker not Paar!

 

[greg14151]

Despite many messages by Kirk regarding head clogging, there have been no
support for his position as to the seriousness of this problem. Indeed,
my experience with 6 different Epson printers (Stylus Color, 800, Stylus
Photo, Stylus Photo 700, Stylus Photo 1200, Stylus Photo 1270 (got it
last Wednesday)) has indicated no significant problems. All indications
are that if you follow directions, you will do well with Epson printers.
Regarding reliablility, none of my printers have been in the shop. I am
not in any way associated with Epson except for being a happy customer.
By the way, the last few Epson Photo printers go out to 44 inches. Do
the HP printers do that?

Um, let's be reasonable here. There are lots of posts in this newsgroup
from people with clogging problems. You can't simply dismiss this.

I treated my Stylus 800 very well and I still got some very annoying
clogs. Even if it were the case that the printer would never clog if you
turned it off properly, it's still a design flaw to produce a product
that can be so easily damaged by power failures.

Now, I don't think the clogging problem is as severe as some have
portrayed it to be. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate concern that should
not simply be dismissed by those who have been fortunate enough never to
experience clogs themselves.

Ron Parr

ok ron,

lets get one major factor straight. we are here discussing the new technology. i hope you have seen the new printers perform. i will buy you dinner if you live in ny or baltimore and you go out and see this printer perform! i am dead serious. there is no comparison to the 970/1000 or 1100. this is a fact. just like leon, i have owned 3 epson's and NEVER problem. I have owned 2 hp's and I had a defective printer. (1000) hp is an all around printer. epson is still light years ahead for photo quality. ron, you were being so good lately?
greg

 

[greg14151]

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com .

I recently purchased a new Epson 1270 it was through this forum and all these threads that I chose the Epson. I have been enjoying photography for the past 22 years with that much time in my darkroom. And after seeing the results from the 1270 and 8 by 10 prints I made in my darkroom, this is one remarkable printer, and my brother-in-law says the same thing, his only regret now is he wishes he waited for the 875. (He purchased the HP P-1000 when it first came out for the ability to insert your flash card and boom instant picture.) The point is he was happy with what he bought and proud of his decision. Just like I'am, So when your ribbing a guy or gal over their choices your also ribbing their intelligence. I can say one thing though we did our own little side by side test we both have Nikon 950's and we both took pictures of the same exact thing and we let the wives and sisters and brothers judge the pictures and more people chose the way the Epson pictures looked than the HP we also both used Glossy Paper and did no imaging enhancing.

I believe we could go round and round on the the subject of printers - HP
vs Epson. I cannot and have not ever said that HP was a bad printer. In
fact, HP is a great printer. I, and everyone I showed pictures to coming
off the Epson vs the HP chose the Epson. That is a simple fact. The
same can be said of most any choice one makes- you evaluate the data and
make a selection. The final call is up to you, the buyer. I cannot say
that Epson is without weaknesses but in the final analysis, what was most
important to me was superior picture quality and that's what I get with
Epson. Likewise, I own a Nikon 950 and have owned the OLY 2000 and OLY
2500. Even though the Nikon is notorious for red-eye, I STILL prefer it
because of other features it has that satisfy me. I am willing to deal
with the red-eye using an external flash. So in the end, do whats right
for you!

Ron Baker not Paar!

ron baker,
that was beautifully said! now you are cooking!
greg

 

[Warren]

I believe we could go round and round on the the subject of printers - HP
vs Epson. I cannot and have not ever said that HP was a bad printer. In
fact, HP is a great printer. I, and everyone I showed pictures to coming
off the Epson vs the HP chose the Epson. That is a simple fact. The
same can be said of most any choice one makes- you evaluate the data and
make a selection. The final call is up to you, the buyer. I cannot say
that Epson is without weaknesses but in the final analysis, what was most
important to me was superior picture quality and that's what I get with
Epson. Likewise, I own a Nikon 950 and have owned the OLY 2000 and OLY
2500. Even though the Nikon is notorious for red-eye, I STILL prefer it
because of other features it has that satisfy me. I am willing to deal
with the red-eye using an external flash. So in the end, do whats right
for you!

Ron Baker not Paar!

ron baker,

Thanks all for the input. I too purchased the OLY2500L Ron. I decided on that over the Nikon for the SLR function. Like you I purchased mine for what I thought was important to me. I think from what everone has said on this thread (which all had valid points for their arguements) I'll hold off awhile and see what's said about the Epson1250 and if HP counters with archival inks and paper also. Again thanks for the input and all your comments are valuable to helping one make a decision.

that was beautifully said! now you are cooking!
greg

 

[Warren]

I believe we could go round and round on the the subject of printers - HP
vs Epson. I cannot and have not ever said that HP was a bad printer. In
fact, HP is a great printer. I, and everyone I showed pictures to coming
off the Epson vs the HP chose the Epson. That is a simple fact. The
same can be said of most any choice one makes- you evaluate the data and
make a selection. The final call is up to you, the buyer. I cannot say
that Epson is without weaknesses but in the final analysis, what was most
important to me was superior picture quality and that's what I get with
Epson. Likewise, I own a Nikon 950 and have owned the OLY 2000 and OLY
2500. Even though the Nikon is notorious for red-eye, I STILL prefer it
because of other features it has that satisfy me. I am willing to deal
with the red-eye using an external flash. So in the end, do whats right
for you!

Ron Baker not Paar!

ron baker,

Thanks all for the input. I too purchased the OLY2500L Ron. I decided on
that over the Nikon for the SLR function. Like you I purchased mine for
what I thought was important to me. I think from what everone has said on
this thread (which all had valid points for their arguements) I'll hold
off awhile and see what's said about the Epson1250 and if HP counters
with archival inks and paper also. Again thanks for the input and all
your comments are valuable to helping one make a decision.

that was beautifully said! now you are cooking!
greg

Sorry people I meant the Epson 1270.

Warren

 

[MJC]

Granted "...no significant problems "
Could you please explain these other problems? Thank you.

Ron,
You are right about the output size of these printers. But you forgot to
reveal to Warren the main problem of Epsons. HEAD CLOGGING! So he needs
the good luck you wished him.

Good Lord. What kind of an answer is that. I bought a printer based on
the fact I needed to make prints larger than 8X10 and wanted photo
quality. That would be an Epson, it's a no brainer. The previous post
asked about large prints. What would you do with your HP, scotch-tape
some prints together and pretend you have a large-format printer. You
make it sound like no one should be allowed to make larger prints because
only the HP is worthy of being owned.That should give you a lot of
credibility.
Peter