Epson Stylus Photo 785epx

TZZDC26562 · Jul 15, 2001

Member said:
Why do I even bother with you, Thomas? Did you not see where I
specifically stated that I did this on PLAIN PAPER? I tweaked my
Epson 870 driver until I was blue in the face and it STILL didn't
do as good as my HP 970 did for producing a DOCUMENT... not a
PHOTO.

Good for you Terry you obviously tweaked the driver where as I dont have to do anything to get it to print other then adusting paper, resolution, and maybe the gamma and thats about it.

Member said:
I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the HP's driver. How does 6
colors vs. 4 colors translate into better BLACK TEXT? That one
eludes me, Thomas.

I did'nt even say that 6 colors would help the black text I mearly stated as obviously you've missed that in printing out a brochure (yes a brochure has TEXT, GRAPHICS, and even PICTURES). I was stating that a 6 color Epson does a better job then a 4 color HP on those brochures I was talking about.

Member said:
Looking at both documents side by side, the HP
text was thinner and crisper especially in the serifs. The colors
of the GRAPHICS (not the product PHOTOS) more closely matched what
I saw on the screen with the HP print.

From what I've seen the Epson text was far sharper then anything HP could pull out of their printing technology. Face it Terry try printing something at 1440 and for god sakes man try unclogging a few of those nozzles on the 870 since you seem to be getting faulty plain text print outs.

As far as color matching goes the Epson was close to what I had on the screen (minus the gamma adjustments). The HP was close but as far as detail and color was concerned the HP prints were muted.

Member said:
As far as the product
photos, the HP prints showed details that weren't discernible on
the Epson print.

Ok so now you're going to say the complete opposite of what you said a few months back. Let me see here Terry you said the Epson with its 6 COLORS can produce detail that a 4 COLOR printer lacks. No I did'nt phrase you word for word but you posted something suggesting that months ago.

I have yet to see an HP that would produce fine detail of lets say a fireworks show without showing dots or a loss in detail.

Face facts Terry 6 COLORS DO PRODUCE DETAILS THAT A 4 COLOR PRINTER CANT PRINT.

Subtle changes in a tshirt for instance going from white to grey to a slight pinkish cast. The Epson reproduces it VERY well.

Member said:
These were very small photos of custom made
scented candles and with the HP print, I could easily read the
labels but with the Epson, I couldn't.

Yes and thats like trying to compare a 1 megapixel camera and trying to tell me it captures more detail the a 5 mega pixel camera.

Member said:
Again, I'm not talking about
using PHOTO paper to do this... I used PLAIN paper. Besides all
that, the HP did the job faster and, with the auto-duplexer it did
both sides of the paper without having to re-feed all those
brochures back through the printer.

Cant argue there the HP is indeed faster but I would'nt trade quality over speed unless I was printing a draft of something. Also the duplexer is'nt really an issue since we are comparing quality of text here.

Member said:
And it's not BIAS that's causing me to say these things... just the
evidence that I have in my hand. Like I said before, if I felt the
Epson would do the same job as well and as economically, I'd have
gotten rid of my HP a long time ago. Why would I bother to keep TWO
printers, buy TWO sets of supplies, and take up valuable deskspace
with TWO printers if ONE would do EVERYTHING??? The plain and
simple answer is that I WOULDN'T. If you'll observe the
conversations here, MANY, MANY Epson Photo Stylus users here ALSO
have another printer to handle their general printing chores. Why?

It sounds like you're VERY biased against the Epson printers and it seems as though you play stupid with setting up the machine right to produce quality prints. Also dont tell me you print with a few clogged nozzles on the Epson and base your opinion on it cos it wont cut it here. I cant comment on how economical the Epson vs HP is because I dont mind, it DOES NOT bother me that the Epson has a chip in the carts cos I can alway by-pass it when ever I want. Lets see my dad has the HP 932c and thinks the prints are good from it and wont hear of my Epson having better prints come out of it then his, for god sakes I even see the lines from the print head on the HP in the final prints and the Epson... nothing or not noticeable. I cant justify having an HP AND an Epson printer and buying cartridges for both but I can justify having two Epsons (the 870 and 780) that use the same cart so if anything happens to one printer I can always use the other and get the same quality.

Terry Thorn · Jul 15, 2001

TZZDC said:
TZZDC26562 said:

Why do I even bother with you, Thomas? Did you not see where I
specifically stated that I did this on PLAIN PAPER? I tweaked my
Epson 870 driver until I was blue in the face and it STILL didn't
do as good as my HP 970 did for producing a DOCUMENT... not a
PHOTO.

Click to expand...

Good for you Terry you obviously tweaked the driver where as I dont
have to do anything to get it to print other then adusting paper,
resolution, and maybe the gamma and thats about it.

Oh, I can get it to PRINT without tweaking but I was trying to get it to print as WELL as the HP did it and it was close but no cigar. I tried EVERY resolution the Epson had to offer Thomas.

TZZDC26562 said:
TZZDC26562 said:

I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the HP's driver. How does 6
colors vs. 4 colors translate into better BLACK TEXT? That one
eludes me, Thomas.

Click to expand...

I did'nt even say that 6 colors would help the black text I mearly
stated as obviously you've missed that in printing out a brochure
(yes a brochure has TEXT, GRAPHICS, and even PICTURES). I was
stating that a 6 color Epson does a better job then a 4 color HP on
those brochures I was talking about.

Obviously not as I have the proof right here. And it's difficult to floow what you have to say as you're very disjointed and erratic.

TZZDC26562 said:
TZZDC26562 said:

Looking at both documents side by side, the HP
text was thinner and crisper especially in the serifs. The colors
of the GRAPHICS (not the product PHOTOS) more closely matched what
I saw on the screen with the HP print.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen the Epson text was far sharper then anything HP
could pull out of their printing technology. Face it Terry try
printing something at 1440 and for god sakes man try unclogging a
few of those nozzles on the 870 since you seem to be getting faulty
plain text print outs.

What? Clogged NOZZLES on the Epsons?!? No way! You and Greg have stated on more than one occaison that NEVER happens. Besides, I do print a nozzle check before EVERY printing session so I can assure you that I don't have clogs. I have tried the 1440 DPI mode and it still doesn't look as good.

TZZDC26562 said:
As far as color matching goes the Epson was close to what I had on
the screen (minus the gamma adjustments). The HP was close but as
far as detail and color was concerned the HP prints were muted.

TZZDC26562 said:
TZZDC26562 said:

As far as the product
photos, the HP prints showed details that weren't discernible on
the Epson print.

Click to expand...

Ok so now you're going to say the complete opposite of what you
said a few months back. Let me see here Terry you said the Epson
with its 6 COLORS can produce detail that a 4 COLOR printer lacks.
No I did'nt phrase you word for word but you posted something
suggesting that months ago.

I've ALWAYS said that HP printer print better photos on PLAIN PAPER. I don't think that the Epson even USES the extra two colors on PLAIN PAPER. From what I see here in my hand, I'd be willing to bet it doesn't. Just like with the HP, the paper choice determines the mode of printing. I know the HP can do a LOT better job of printing photos than what I see it do on PLAIN PAPER.

TZZDC26562 said:
I have yet to see an HP that would produce fine detail of lets say
a fireworks show without showing dots or a loss in detail.

Face facts Terry 6 COLORS DO PRODUCE DETAILS THAT A 4 COLOR PRINTER
CANT PRINT.

Subtle changes in a tshirt for instance going from white to grey to
a slight pinkish cast. The Epson reproduces it VERY well.

TZZDC26562 said:

These were very small photos of custom made
scented candles and with the HP print, I could easily read the
labels but with the Epson, I couldn't.

Click to expand...

Yes and thats like trying to compare a 1 megapixel camera and
trying to tell me it captures more detail the a 5 mega pixel camera.

But we're not comparing a 1 megapixel camera and a 5 megapixel camera, Thomas. These printers aren't as vastly different as you make them out to be in your UNBIASED observations.

TZZDC26562 said:
TZZDC26562 said:

Again, I'm not talking about
using PHOTO paper to do this... I used PLAIN paper. Besides all
that, the HP did the job faster and, with the auto-duplexer it did
both sides of the paper without having to re-feed all those
brochures back through the printer.

Click to expand...

Cant argue there the HP is indeed faster but I would'nt trade
quality over speed unless I was printing a draft of something. Also
the duplexer is'nt really an issue since we are comparing quality
of text here.

But I get the speed AND the better quality. I'd also be willing to bet my bottom dollar that if the Epson had a duplexer, it WOULD be an issue... a BIG one.

TZZDC26562 said:
TZZDC26562 said:

And it's not BIAS that's causing me to say these things... just the
evidence that I have in my hand. Like I said before, if I felt the
Epson would do the same job as well and as economically, I'd have
gotten rid of my HP a long time ago. Why would I bother to keep TWO
printers, buy TWO sets of supplies, and take up valuable deskspace
with TWO printers if ONE would do EVERYTHING??? The plain and
simple answer is that I WOULDN'T. If you'll observe the
conversations here, MANY, MANY Epson Photo Stylus users here ALSO
have another printer to handle their general printing chores. Why?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're VERY biased against the Epson printers and it
seems as though you play stupid with setting up the machine right
to produce quality prints. Also dont tell me you print with a few
clogged nozzles on the Epson and base your opinion on it cos it
wont cut it here. I cant comment on how economical the Epson vs HP
is because I dont mind, it DOES NOT bother me that the Epson has a
chip in the carts cos I can alway by-pass it when ever I want. Lets
see my dad has the HP 932c and thinks the prints are good from it
and wont hear of my Epson having better prints come out of it then
his, for god sakes I even see the lines from the print head on the
HP in the final prints and the Epson... nothing or not noticeable.
I cant justify having an HP AND an Epson printer and buying
cartridges for both but I can justify having two Epsons (the 870
and 780) that use the same cart so if anything happens to one
printer I can always use the other and get the same quality.

If you care to look at my postings, you'll see that I recommend Epson printers for PHOTO printing quite often but I'm NOT going to say that the quality between them is "worlds apart" or "blows everything else out of the water" like you because it's just NOT TRUE. If I was as biased as you say, then I wouldn't be doing that, right? If someone were to look at YOUR posts, they'd see what bias really looks like. I can't say how your dad's printouts look but I get great printouts from my HP 970 and also got them with my HP 932 when I had it. If they looked as bad as you say your dad's do, I'd have tossed it a LONG time ago. It's pretty evident that you're pretty much going to discount anything good said about an HP and bash anything bad said about an Epson so I won't waste my time on you any longer. It doesn't do any good to go email with you because you'll just post whatever I say here in the forum (with some creative editing) like you did before. Isn't it a little silly to have two essentially identical printers at the same time? Since you work at OfficeMax, you could just pick one up anytime and by buying it whenever you NEEDED it, the price COULD be a little lower as is usually the case as a product gets older rather than buying it when it's newly released and more expensive. Is it paramount that you have a printer at ALL times? Does your livelihood depend on having a functioning printer 24 hours a day? I wouldn't think an 18-19 year old salesclerk at OfficeMax would have need of such things.

mbryda · Jul 15, 2001

Terry Thorn said:
Um, I'd say that was a VERY fair comparison. A 4-5 year old HP vs.
a new Epson. I remember when I got my HP 722 and a friend of mine
had an older HP 800 series, I saw a noticeable difference between
the printouts.

In Black and white? On Text? I would hardly think so. I've seen the plain text of the new HP's (wife's family has a 7xx) and they look as good as my 820cse. Inkjet text printing hasn't changed all that much in the last few years. It's the color/photo printing that has.

Member said:
And watch that black ink level indicator drop like a stone. Epson
on "Best"? Where did you see that? I can't find it on my 870 driver.

Member said:

But, if you do a lot of text, nothing beats a laser.

Click to expand...

True enough but we aren't discussing laser printers.

They all will drop like a rock on best. As far as the "best" on the Epson, set the quality-speed slider on Quality.

Member said:
You can and SHOULD see dots on ALL the samples. And if you get a
decent sample print out from an Epson on display, you're damn
lucky. Even the Epson rep at my local CompUSA had to ORDER sample

I was in OM the other day and saw some samples from the Cannon S800, Epson (forget which), and the HP (1100, I think) and the HP's photo sucked. The skintones were obviously dithered and it just didnt look good. Epsons and Cannons looked good, with smooth gradiations.

Member said:
was like you and Thomas say it is, I don't know why anyone else
even bothers to build another inkjet printer. Epson can do it ALL!
But then, why are you hanging on to that 4-5 year old HP 820 of
yours, Matt?

Same reason why they build many different computers, many makes of cars, etc. Everyone has their tastes and preferences. I know people who will only buy HP printers because they are HP. I know people who won't look at an Epson because of the way it feeds paper (same goes for Canon and Lexmark).

As for me keeping the HP 820, it's because it works. I have 3 printers now, Xerox Docuprint P8 laser, HP 820 and the Epson 875. I'm one of those people who never throws away old PC parts. I have an Internet gateway running Win2k on my old K5/133. My old K62-350 is our fileserver. As long as it works, I find a use for it. Right now, it's a backup color printer for when the Epson is busy. Also, the Xerox doesn't like to be networked, so it's a backup printer for a few other PC's on the home network.

Member said:
All I know is that I have two identical documents in my hands NOW
printed out with both my Epson 870 and HP 970 and the HP just did
an overall better looking job more economically and faster than my
Epson 870 did.

How is it more economical?

Black is about a draw - not sure how many pages either gets to a black cartridge.

Color, you can get almost 2 Epson cartridges for the price of 1 standard HP cartridge or 3 Epsons for 1 HP Hi Cap.

The thing that gets me about HP is the cost of the cartridges. Epson may use more, but they cost less per cartridge.

I just did a sample print on both printers, at high quality and they both looked great. I wouldn't say either was "better" than the other. The HP's black was a little blacker. Some characters looked better formed on the Epson, with less bleeding. Other than that, they both looked like your stnadard inkjet printing on cheap paper (regular old xerography paper).

-Matt

mbryda · Jul 15, 2001

Terry Thorn said:
I've ALWAYS said that HP printer print better photos on PLAIN
PAPER. I don't think that the Epson even USES the extra two colors
on PLAIN PAPER. From what I see here in my hand, I'd be willing to
bet it doesn't. Just like with the HP, the paper choice determines

Yes it does. I printed the exact same pic on plain paper settings when I forst got the Epson to compare to the HP and the HP's shadings had noticeable dithering while the Epson did not. Not to mention I usually proof my digicam pics on the Epson, getting 6 pics to a sheet on plain paper and they look pretty good, with no noticeable dithering, so I'd say it does use 6 color mode on plain paper.

-Matt

TZZDC26562 · Jul 15, 2001

Terry Thorn said:
TZZDC said:

Member said:

Why do I even bother with you, Thomas? Did you not see where I
specifically stated that I did this on PLAIN PAPER? I tweaked my
Epson 870 driver until I was blue in the face and it STILL didn't
do as good as my HP 970 did for producing a DOCUMENT... not a
PHOTO.

Click to expand...

Good for you Terry you obviously tweaked the driver where as I dont
have to do anything to get it to print other then adusting paper,
resolution, and maybe the gamma and thats about it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I can get it to PRINT without tweaking but I was trying to get
it to print as WELL as the HP did it and it was close but no cigar.
I tried EVERY resolution the Epson had to offer Thomas.

Then print on some better quality paper then if you're not satisfied.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the HP's driver. How does 6
colors vs. 4 colors translate into better BLACK TEXT? That one
eludes me, Thomas.

Click to expand...

I did'nt even say that 6 colors would help the black text I mearly
stated as obviously you've missed that in printing out a brochure
(yes a brochure has TEXT, GRAPHICS, and even PICTURES). I was
stating that a 6 color Epson does a better job then a 4 color HP on
those brochures I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Obviously not as I have the proof right here. And it's difficult to
floow what you have to say as you're very disjointed and erratic.

Obviously you play the devil and the angel at the same time... why is it you post also about Epson printer and help people out when you infact cant deal with an Epson right here.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

Looking at both documents side by side, the HP
text was thinner and crisper especially in the serifs. The colors
of the GRAPHICS (not the product PHOTOS) more closely matched what
I saw on the screen with the HP print.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen the Epson text was far sharper then anything HP
could pull out of their printing technology. Face it Terry try
printing something at 1440 and for god sakes man try unclogging a
few of those nozzles on the 870 since you seem to be getting faulty
plain text print outs.

Click to expand...

What? Clogged NOZZLES on the Epsons?!? No way! You and Greg have
stated on more than one occaison that NEVER happens. Besides, I do
print a nozzle check before EVERY printing session so I can assure
you that I don't have clogs. I have tried the 1440 DPI mode and it
still doesn't look as good.

Seriously you claim that the Epson prints are less then perfect and you claim the HP's rule as far as quality go.

Member said:
Member said:

As far as color matching goes the Epson was close to what I had on
the screen (minus the gamma adjustments). The HP was close but as
far as detail and color was concerned the HP prints were muted.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

As far as the product
photos, the HP prints showed details that weren't discernible on
the Epson print.

Click to expand...

Ok so now you're going to say the complete opposite of what you
said a few months back. Let me see here Terry you said the Epson
with its 6 COLORS can produce detail that a 4 COLOR printer lacks.
No I did'nt phrase you word for word but you posted something
suggesting that months ago.

Click to expand...

I've ALWAYS said that HP printer print better photos on PLAIN
PAPER. I don't think that the Epson even USES the extra two colors
on PLAIN PAPER. From what I see here in my hand, I'd be willing to
bet it doesn't. Just like with the HP, the paper choice determines
the mode of printing. I know the HP can do a LOT better job of
printing photos than what I see it do on PLAIN PAPER.

Why the hell would you print photos on PLAIN PAPER?? seriously and you call me the disjointed and erratic one huh? next time try some photo paper then come back and whine.

Member said:
Member said:

I have yet to see an HP that would produce fine detail of lets say
a fireworks show without showing dots or a loss in detail.

Face facts Terry 6 COLORS DO PRODUCE DETAILS THAT A 4 COLOR PRINTER
CANT PRINT.

Subtle changes in a tshirt for instance going from white to grey to
a slight pinkish cast. The Epson reproduces it VERY well.

Member said:

These were very small photos of custom made
scented candles and with the HP print, I could easily read the
labels but with the Epson, I couldn't.

Click to expand...

Yes and thats like trying to compare a 1 megapixel camera and
trying to tell me it captures more detail the a 5 mega pixel camera.

Click to expand...

But we're not comparing a 1 megapixel camera and a 5 megapixel
camera, Thomas. These printers aren't as vastly different as you
make them out to be in your UNBIASED observations.

No but you're comparing the details of a 4 COLOR printer to a 6 COLOR printer and you claim the 4 COLOR one gives better detail then the 6 color one. What are those 2 extra inks used for Terry... next time try a flower with subtle differences in its peddles and dont screw up the print and then come back to me.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

Again, I'm not talking about
using PHOTO paper to do this... I used PLAIN paper. Besides all
that, the HP did the job faster and, with the auto-duplexer it did
both sides of the paper without having to re-feed all those
brochures back through the printer.

Click to expand...

Cant argue there the HP is indeed faster but I would'nt trade
quality over speed unless I was printing a draft of something. Also
the duplexer is'nt really an issue since we are comparing quality
of text here.

Click to expand...

But I get the speed AND the better quality. I'd also be willing to
bet my bottom dollar that if the Epson had a duplexer, it WOULD be
an issue... a BIG one.

you might get the speed but the quality is better left to Epsons capable hands. Seriously if you value speed so much then by all means go with the HP cos you cant have the BEST quality and the FASTEST speed at the same time. The multiplexer I'd see in a 4 color Epson printer like the 900 series rather then the photo Epsons simply because no one needs them.

Member said:
Member said:

Member said:

And it's not BIAS that's causing me to say these things... just the
evidence that I have in my hand. Like I said before, if I felt the
Epson would do the same job as well and as economically, I'd have
gotten rid of my HP a long time ago. Why would I bother to keep TWO
printers, buy TWO sets of supplies, and take up valuable deskspace
with TWO printers if ONE would do EVERYTHING??? The plain and
simple answer is that I WOULDN'T. If you'll observe the
conversations here, MANY, MANY Epson Photo Stylus users here ALSO
have another printer to handle their general printing chores. Why?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're VERY biased against the Epson printers and it
seems as though you play stupid with setting up the machine right
to produce quality prints. Also dont tell me you print with a few
clogged nozzles on the Epson and base your opinion on it cos it
wont cut it here. I cant comment on how economical the Epson vs HP
is because I dont mind, it DOES NOT bother me that the Epson has a
chip in the carts cos I can alway by-pass it when ever I want. Lets
see my dad has the HP 932c and thinks the prints are good from it
and wont hear of my Epson having better prints come out of it then
his, for god sakes I even see the lines from the print head on the
HP in the final prints and the Epson... nothing or not noticeable.
I cant justify having an HP AND an Epson printer and buying
cartridges for both but I can justify having two Epsons (the 870
and 780) that use the same cart so if anything happens to one
printer I can always use the other and get the same quality.

Click to expand...

If you care to look at my postings, you'll see that I recommend
Epson printers for PHOTO printing quite often but I'm NOT going to
say that the quality between them is "worlds apart" or "blows
everything else out of the water" like you because it's just NOT
TRUE. If I was as biased as you say, then I wouldn't be doing that,
right? If someone were to look at YOUR posts, they'd see what bias

the Epson prints look better ok PERIOD I'm not going to explain how every atom works out.

Member said:
really looks like. I can't say how your dad's printouts look but I
get great printouts from my HP 970 and also got them with my HP 932
when I had it. If they looked as bad as you say your dad's do, I'd
have tossed it a LONG time ago. It's pretty evident that you're
pretty much going to discount anything good said about an HP and

All I'm saying is for whatever reason or another the prints look bad. Could it be my dads fault.. maybe could it be the 932 and its cartridges being screwed up some how...maybe.

Member said:
bash anything bad said about an Epson so I won't waste my time on
you any longer. It doesn't do any good to go email with you because
you'll just post whatever I say here in the forum (with some
creative editing) like you did before. Isn't it a little silly to
have two essentially identical printers at the same time? Since you
work at OfficeMax, you could just pick one up anytime and by buying
it whenever you NEEDED it, the price COULD be a little lower as is
usually the case as a product gets older rather than buying it when
it's newly released and more expensive. Is it paramount that you
have a printer at ALL times? Does your livelihood depend on having
a functioning printer 24 hours a day? I wouldn't think an 18-19
year old salesclerk at OfficeMax would have need of such things.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time to explain to you why and how Epson printers produce better photos and graphics when printing, THEY JUST DO SO GET OVER IT AND SHUTUP. A majority of my work is with digital photos so in one word YES having a printer all the time helps me out. My lively hood is none of your damn business so dont even go there.

John Burns · Jul 15, 2001

Yes you can get two Epson cartridges for the price of one HP cartridge. Each HP cartridge will give you almost exactly 3X as many prints as the Epsons. That's how it is more economical.

John

matt said:
How is it more economical?
Black is about a draw - not sure how many pages either gets to a
black cartridge.
Color, you can get almost 2 Epson cartridges for the price of 1
standard HP cartridge or 3 Epsons for 1 HP Hi Cap.
The thing that gets me about HP is the cost of the cartridges.
Epson may use more, but they cost less per cartridge.

-Matt

John Burns · Jul 15, 2001

this is the only place I have ever read(and I read a lot) that someone thinks the Epsons print better on plain paper than the HPs. It is generally accepted the Epsons are the top with photos on photo paper but every review I have read mentions that the text on plain paper is not up to the level of the HP printers.

John

TZZDC said:
TZZDC26562 said:

Why do I even bother with you, Thomas? Did you not see where I
specifically stated that I did this on PLAIN PAPER? I tweaked my
Epson 870 driver until I was blue in the face and it STILL didn't
do as good as my HP 970 did for producing a DOCUMENT... not a
PHOTO.

Click to expand...

Good for you Terry you obviously tweaked the driver where as I dont
have to do anything to get it to print other then adusting paper,
resolution, and maybe the gamma and thats about it.

TZZDC26562 said:

I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the HP's driver. How does 6
colors vs. 4 colors translate into better BLACK TEXT? That one
eludes me, Thomas.

Click to expand...

I did'nt even say that 6 colors would help the black text I mearly
stated as obviously you've missed that in printing out a brochure
(yes a brochure has TEXT, GRAPHICS, and even PICTURES). I was
stating that a 6 color Epson does a better job then a 4 color HP on
those brochures I was talking about.

TZZDC26562 said:

Looking at both documents side by side, the HP
text was thinner and crisper especially in the serifs. The colors
of the GRAPHICS (not the product PHOTOS) more closely matched what
I saw on the screen with the HP print.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen the Epson text was far sharper then anything HP
could pull out of their printing technology. Face it Terry try
printing something at 1440 and for god sakes man try unclogging a
few of those nozzles on the 870 since you seem to be getting faulty
plain text print outs.
As far as color matching goes the Epson was close to what I had on
the screen (minus the gamma adjustments). The HP was close but as
far as detail and color was concerned the HP prints were muted.

TZZDC26562 said:

As far as the product
photos, the HP prints showed details that weren't discernible on
the Epson print.

Click to expand...

Ok so now you're going to say the complete opposite of what you
said a few months back. Let me see here Terry you said the Epson
with its 6 COLORS can produce detail that a 4 COLOR printer lacks.
No I did'nt phrase you word for word but you posted something
suggesting that months ago.
I have yet to see an HP that would produce fine detail of lets say
a fireworks show without showing dots or a loss in detail.

Face facts Terry 6 COLORS DO PRODUCE DETAILS THAT A 4 COLOR PRINTER
CANT PRINT.

Subtle changes in a tshirt for instance going from white to grey to
a slight pinkish cast. The Epson reproduces it VERY well.

TZZDC26562 said:

These were very small photos of custom made
scented candles and with the HP print, I could easily read the
labels but with the Epson, I couldn't.

Click to expand...

Yes and thats like trying to compare a 1 megapixel camera and
trying to tell me it captures more detail the a 5 mega pixel camera.

TZZDC26562 said:

Again, I'm not talking about
using PHOTO paper to do this... I used PLAIN paper. Besides all
that, the HP did the job faster and, with the auto-duplexer it did
both sides of the paper without having to re-feed all those
brochures back through the printer.

Click to expand...

Cant argue there the HP is indeed faster but I would'nt trade
quality over speed unless I was printing a draft of something. Also
the duplexer is'nt really an issue since we are comparing quality
of text here.

TZZDC26562 said:

And it's not BIAS that's causing me to say these things... just the
evidence that I have in my hand. Like I said before, if I felt the
Epson would do the same job as well and as economically, I'd have
gotten rid of my HP a long time ago. Why would I bother to keep TWO
printers, buy TWO sets of supplies, and take up valuable deskspace
with TWO printers if ONE would do EVERYTHING??? The plain and
simple answer is that I WOULDN'T. If you'll observe the
conversations here, MANY, MANY Epson Photo Stylus users here ALSO
have another printer to handle their general printing chores. Why?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're VERY biased against the Epson printers and it
seems as though you play stupid with setting up the machine right
to produce quality prints. Also dont tell me you print with a few
clogged nozzles on the Epson and base your opinion on it cos it
wont cut it here. I cant comment on how economical the Epson vs HP
is because I dont mind, it DOES NOT bother me that the Epson has a
chip in the carts cos I can alway by-pass it when ever I want. Lets
see my dad has the HP 932c and thinks the prints are good from it
and wont hear of my Epson having better prints come out of it then
his, for god sakes I even see the lines from the print head on the
HP in the final prints and the Epson... nothing or not noticeable.
I cant justify having an HP AND an Epson printer and buying
cartridges for both but I can justify having two Epsons (the 870
and 780) that use the same cart so if anything happens to one
printer I can always use the other and get the same quality.

mbryda · Jul 15, 2001

John Burns said:
Yes you can get two Epson cartridges for the price of one HP
cartridge. Each HP cartridge will give you almost exactly 3X as
many prints as the Epsons. That's how it is more economical.

The Hi cap. HP Cartridge or a regular? Because the High cap is 3x the cost of Epson, so the savings is nil...

-Matt

John Burns · Jul 15, 2001

Regular. I get usually get beween 150 full 8x10's with the large cartridge. I do get a low ink warning at around 120 but unlike the Epsons I can just keep going until I actually get a print that shows I have run out of one color.

John

matt said:
John Burns said:

Yes you can get two Epson cartridges for the price of one HP
cartridge. Each HP cartridge will give you almost exactly 3X as
many prints as the Epsons. That's how it is more economical.

Click to expand...

The Hi cap. HP Cartridge or a regular? Because the High cap is 3x
the cost of Epson, so the savings is nil...

-Matt

John Burns · Jul 15, 2001

Printers aside, you are one rude individual.

John

TZZDC said:
Terry Thorn said:

TZZDC said:

TZZDC26562 said:

Why do I even bother with you, Thomas? Did you not see where I
specifically stated that I did this on PLAIN PAPER? I tweaked my
Epson 870 driver until I was blue in the face and it STILL didn't
do as good as my HP 970 did for producing a DOCUMENT... not a
PHOTO.

Click to expand...

Good for you Terry you obviously tweaked the driver where as I dont
have to do anything to get it to print other then adusting paper,
resolution, and maybe the gamma and thats about it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I can get it to PRINT without tweaking but I was trying to get
it to print as WELL as the HP did it and it was close but no cigar.
I tried EVERY resolution the Epson had to offer Thomas.

Click to expand...

Then print on some better quality paper then if you're not satisfied.

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the HP's driver. How does 6
colors vs. 4 colors translate into better BLACK TEXT? That one
eludes me, Thomas.

Click to expand...

I did'nt even say that 6 colors would help the black text I mearly
stated as obviously you've missed that in printing out a brochure
(yes a brochure has TEXT, GRAPHICS, and even PICTURES). I was
stating that a 6 color Epson does a better job then a 4 color HP on
those brochures I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Obviously not as I have the proof right here. And it's difficult to
floow what you have to say as you're very disjointed and erratic.

Click to expand...

Obviously you play the devil and the angel at the same time... why
is it you post also about Epson printer and help people out when
you infact cant deal with an Epson right here.

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

Looking at both documents side by side, the HP
text was thinner and crisper especially in the serifs. The colors
of the GRAPHICS (not the product PHOTOS) more closely matched what
I saw on the screen with the HP print.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen the Epson text was far sharper then anything HP
could pull out of their printing technology. Face it Terry try
printing something at 1440 and for god sakes man try unclogging a
few of those nozzles on the 870 since you seem to be getting faulty
plain text print outs.

Click to expand...

What? Clogged NOZZLES on the Epsons?!? No way! You and Greg have
stated on more than one occaison that NEVER happens. Besides, I do
print a nozzle check before EVERY printing session so I can assure
you that I don't have clogs. I have tried the 1440 DPI mode and it
still doesn't look as good.

Click to expand...

Seriously you claim that the Epson prints are less then perfect and
you claim the HP's rule as far as quality go.

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

As far as color matching goes the Epson was close to what I had on
the screen (minus the gamma adjustments). The HP was close but as
far as detail and color was concerned the HP prints were muted.

Click to expand...

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

As far as the product
photos, the HP prints showed details that weren't discernible on
the Epson print.

Click to expand...

Ok so now you're going to say the complete opposite of what you
said a few months back. Let me see here Terry you said the Epson
with its 6 COLORS can produce detail that a 4 COLOR printer lacks.
No I did'nt phrase you word for word but you posted something
suggesting that months ago.

Click to expand...

I've ALWAYS said that HP printer print better photos on PLAIN
PAPER. I don't think that the Epson even USES the extra two colors
on PLAIN PAPER. From what I see here in my hand, I'd be willing to
bet it doesn't. Just like with the HP, the paper choice determines
the mode of printing. I know the HP can do a LOT better job of
printing photos than what I see it do on PLAIN PAPER.

Click to expand...

Why the hell would you print photos on PLAIN PAPER?? seriously and
you call me the disjointed and erratic one huh? next time try some
photo paper then come back and whine.

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

I have yet to see an HP that would produce fine detail of lets say
a fireworks show without showing dots or a loss in detail.

Face facts Terry 6 COLORS DO PRODUCE DETAILS THAT A 4 COLOR PRINTER
CANT PRINT.

Subtle changes in a tshirt for instance going from white to grey to
a slight pinkish cast. The Epson reproduces it VERY well.

TZZDC26562 said:

These were very small photos of custom made
scented candles and with the HP print, I could easily read the
labels but with the Epson, I couldn't.

Click to expand...

Yes and thats like trying to compare a 1 megapixel camera and
trying to tell me it captures more detail the a 5 mega pixel camera.

Click to expand...

But we're not comparing a 1 megapixel camera and a 5 megapixel
camera, Thomas. These printers aren't as vastly different as you
make them out to be in your UNBIASED observations.

Click to expand...

No but you're comparing the details of a 4 COLOR printer to a 6
COLOR printer and you claim the 4 COLOR one gives better detail
then the 6 color one. What are those 2 extra inks used for Terry...
next time try a flower with subtle differences in its peddles and
dont screw up the print and then come back to me.

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

Again, I'm not talking about
using PHOTO paper to do this... I used PLAIN paper. Besides all
that, the HP did the job faster and, with the auto-duplexer it did
both sides of the paper without having to re-feed all those
brochures back through the printer.

Click to expand...

Cant argue there the HP is indeed faster but I would'nt trade
quality over speed unless I was printing a draft of something. Also
the duplexer is'nt really an issue since we are comparing quality
of text here.

Click to expand...

But I get the speed AND the better quality. I'd also be willing to
bet my bottom dollar that if the Epson had a duplexer, it WOULD be
an issue... a BIG one.

Click to expand...

you might get the speed but the quality is better left to Epsons
capable hands. Seriously if you value speed so much then by all
means go with the HP cos you cant have the BEST quality and the
FASTEST speed at the same time. The multiplexer I'd see in a 4
color Epson printer like the 900 series rather then the photo
Epsons simply because no one needs them.

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

TZZDC26562 said:

And it's not BIAS that's causing me to say these things... just the
evidence that I have in my hand. Like I said before, if I felt the
Epson would do the same job as well and as economically, I'd have
gotten rid of my HP a long time ago. Why would I bother to keep TWO
printers, buy TWO sets of supplies, and take up valuable deskspace
with TWO printers if ONE would do EVERYTHING??? The plain and
simple answer is that I WOULDN'T. If you'll observe the
conversations here, MANY, MANY Epson Photo Stylus users here ALSO
have another printer to handle their general printing chores. Why?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're VERY biased against the Epson printers and it
seems as though you play stupid with setting up the machine right
to produce quality prints. Also dont tell me you print with a few
clogged nozzles on the Epson and base your opinion on it cos it
wont cut it here. I cant comment on how economical the Epson vs HP
is because I dont mind, it DOES NOT bother me that the Epson has a
chip in the carts cos I can alway by-pass it when ever I want. Lets
see my dad has the HP 932c and thinks the prints are good from it
and wont hear of my Epson having better prints come out of it then
his, for god sakes I even see the lines from the print head on the
HP in the final prints and the Epson... nothing or not noticeable.
I cant justify having an HP AND an Epson printer and buying
cartridges for both but I can justify having two Epsons (the 870
and 780) that use the same cart so if anything happens to one
printer I can always use the other and get the same quality.

Click to expand...

If you care to look at my postings, you'll see that I recommend
Epson printers for PHOTO printing quite often but I'm NOT going to
say that the quality between them is "worlds apart" or "blows
everything else out of the water" like you because it's just NOT
TRUE. If I was as biased as you say, then I wouldn't be doing that,
right? If someone were to look at YOUR posts, they'd see what bias

Click to expand...

the Epson prints look better ok PERIOD I'm not going to explain how
every atom works out.

TZZDC26562 said:

really looks like. I can't say how your dad's printouts look but I
get great printouts from my HP 970 and also got them with my HP 932
when I had it. If they looked as bad as you say your dad's do, I'd
have tossed it a LONG time ago. It's pretty evident that you're
pretty much going to discount anything good said about an HP and

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is for whatever reason or another the prints look
bad. Could it be my dads fault.. maybe could it be the 932 and its
cartridges being screwed up some how...maybe.

TZZDC26562 said:

bash anything bad said about an Epson so I won't waste my time on
you any longer. It doesn't do any good to go email with you because
you'll just post whatever I say here in the forum (with some
creative editing) like you did before. Isn't it a little silly to
have two essentially identical printers at the same time? Since you
work at OfficeMax, you could just pick one up anytime and by buying
it whenever you NEEDED it, the price COULD be a little lower as is
usually the case as a product gets older rather than buying it when
it's newly released and more expensive. Is it paramount that you
have a printer at ALL times? Does your livelihood depend on having
a functioning printer 24 hours a day? I wouldn't think an 18-19
year old salesclerk at OfficeMax would have need of such things.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to waste any more of my time to explain to you why
and how Epson printers produce better photos and graphics when
printing, THEY JUST DO SO GET OVER IT AND SHUTUP. A majority of my
work is with digital photos so in one word YES having a printer all
the time helps me out. My lively hood is none of your damn business
so dont even go there.

TZZDC26562 · Jul 15, 2001

People like Terry with their heightened biased against one company or product line just in general p i s s me off.

Guess I'll stick to helping out pda users.

http://www.pdanet.net
irc.pdanet.net

pdanet

Terry Thorn · Jul 15, 2001

TZZDC said:
Then print on some better quality paper then if you're not satisfied.

And raise the costs... not thanks. I get the quality anyway without having to do that.

TZZDC26562 said:
Obviously you play the devil and the angel at the same time... why
is it you post also about Epson printer and help people out when
you infact cant deal with an Epson right here.

At least I CAN help people out with their Epson problems and HAVE done so. You probably still believe the Epson ink level indicator shows the actual ink levels and that they ALL deplete EVENLY. This is what YOU have stated before. At least I read the owner's manual.

TZZDC26562 said:
Seriously you claim that the Epson prints are less then perfect and
you claim the HP's rule as far as quality go.

Well, Epson prints ARE less than perfect. Do YOU believe otherwise? It SEEMS so. I have NEVER said that HP's rule and you know it. If you have seen me state that, show me. I have said MANY MANY times that they're ALL good printers even though SOME people (such as yourself) would have people believe that Epsons are SO much better than everything else.

TZZDC26562 said:
Why the hell would you print photos on PLAIN PAPER?? seriously and
you call me the disjointed and erratic one huh? next time try some
photo paper then come back and whine.

Remember this Thomas? You should, YOU typed it "(yes a brochure has TEXT, GRAPHICS, and even PICTURES)". THAT'S why you'd print photos on PLAIN PAPER. You can't even follow what YOU'VE said so how is anyone else supposed to? This whole discussion evolved from a claim by someone (whom you tactfully called a liar) who said that TEXT looked better on an HP into an "Epson does better photos" argument by YOU. Can't ANYONE say ANYTHING good about an HP without The Faithful attacking it?

TZZDC26562 said:
No but you're comparing the details of a 4 COLOR printer to a 6
COLOR printer and you claim the 4 COLOR one gives better detail
then the 6 color one. What are those 2 extra inks used for Terry...
next time try a flower with subtle differences in its peddles and
dont screw up the print and then come back to me.

Some of the brochure photos I'm looking at DO have flowers in them and they look BETTER on the HP printout on PLAIN PAPER. If we were talking about PHOTO PAPER (which I am NOT), I'd agree with you. You must think these extra two colors just create detail out of nothing. It just AIN'T so.

TZZDC26562 said:
you might get the speed but the quality is better left to Epsons
capable hands. Seriously if you value speed so much then by all
means go with the HP cos you cant have the BEST quality and the
FASTEST speed at the same time. The multiplexer I'd see in a 4
color Epson printer like the 900 series rather then the photo
Epsons simply because no one needs them.

No one needs the duplexer in YOUR opinion because Epson doesn't offer one. The fact is, the duplexer is used by a LOT of people such as myself who don't have the time or inclination to sit by and babysit a printing job. I can leave a stack of paper in the printer, start the job, and come back later to collect the finished TWO-SIDED work.

TZZDC26562 said:
All I'm saying is for whatever reason or another the prints look
bad. Could it be my dads fault.. maybe could it be the 932 and its
cartridges being screwed up some how...maybe.

Yeah, it COULD be something like that. Finally, you've said something sensible.

TZZDC26562 said:
I'm not going to waste any more of my time to explain to you why
and how Epson printers produce better photos and graphics when
printing, THEY JUST DO SO GET OVER IT AND SHUTUP. A majority of my
work is with digital photos so in one word YES having a printer all
the time helps me out. My lively hood is none of your damn business
so dont even go there.

I really don't care what your livelihood actually is but it just seems odd that an 18-19 year-old living at home with his parents has need of two virtually identical printers in case one goes out on him. Since you work at OfficeMax, I wouldn't think you'd be printerless for more than a few hours. I just thought it weird. That shows you don't have much confidence in Epson's reliability though.

"THEY JUST DO SO GET OVER IT AND SHUTUP" Ouch. That really hurt. Guess that settles it then. I have no choice but to bow to your impeccable logic. ;-)

Terry Thorn · Jul 15, 2001

TZZDC said:
People like Terry with their heightened biased against one company
or product line just in general p i s s me off.

Guess I'll stick to helping out pda users.

http://www.pdanet.net
irc.pdanet.net

pdanet

Have you looked in the mirror lately, Thomas? You got this thread where it is because you couldn't STAND someone saying an HP did anything better than an Epson. You didn't just disagree... you called the poster a LIAR. He has HIS opinion and you have YOURS. I'm sure he believes in HIS opinion as much as you do yours. Why is it that he's a LIAR and you're not? You try to counter as many pro-HP and pro-Canon statements as you possibly can and you call ME biased?

Brent Nelson · Jul 15, 2001

Thanks Terry for backing me up there.

When speaking of text, I am referring to the default setting for both printers. On the HP it was Normal and on the epson it was 360dpi (i also tried both the speed setting and the quality setting at 360 dpi). The HP produced darker text which was less "jagged" and was more black looking. This is not saying that the Epson produced bad text on the plain paper, it was accceptable, and it looked pretty good, but there was a noticible difference between the two. The paper that I am using is Great White Inkjet 24 Paper w/ a 90 brightness. I have used this paper for basically every printer I have owned (we even use it at work) for plain paper printouts, so I know it is of decent quality. On coated inkjet paper the Epson's text matched that of a laser printer--but only with the print quality at least set to 720dpi.

On PHOTO PAPER ( I am using Office Depot -- very good!) the Epson's printouts look better. Gradiations are smoother (due to the 6 color print cartridge) and on the Epson I have yet to really see any dithering. Hp's photo printouts on the same paper and of the same photo are good also, but not as good as the Epson's. Up close you can see the dithering but at a good focal length it is not all that noticable. I also found the colors on the epson to be more vivid and natural.

Well thats my 2 cents. I didn't know that my post would cause all this fuss! Geesh!

-Brent

Terry Thorn said:
TZZDC said:

People like Terry with their heightened biased against one company
or product line just in general p i s s me off.

Guess I'll stick to helping out pda users.

http://www.pdanet.net
irc.pdanet.net

pdanet

Click to expand...

Have you looked in the mirror lately, Thomas? You got this thread
where it is because you couldn't STAND someone saying an HP did
anything better than an Epson. You didn't just disagree... you
called the poster a LIAR. He has HIS opinion and you have YOURS.
I'm sure he believes in HIS opinion as much as you do yours. Why is
it that he's a LIAR and you're not? You try to counter as many
pro-HP and pro-Canon statements as you possibly can and you call ME
biased?

Terry Thorn · Jul 16, 2001

Brent said:
Thanks Terry for backing me up there.

When speaking of text, I am referring to the default setting for
both printers. On the HP it was Normal and on the epson it was
360dpi (i also tried both the speed setting and the quality setting
at 360 dpi). The HP produced darker text which was less "jagged"
and was more black looking. This is not saying that the Epson
produced bad text on the plain paper, it was accceptable, and it
looked pretty good, but there was a noticible difference between
the two. The paper that I am using is Great White Inkjet 24 Paper
w/ a 90 brightness. I have used this paper for basically every
printer I have owned (we even use it at work) for plain paper
printouts, so I know it is of decent quality. On coated inkjet
paper the Epson's text matched that of a laser printer--but only
with the print quality at least set to 720dpi.

On PHOTO PAPER ( I am using Office Depot -- very good!) the
Epson's printouts look better. Gradiations are smoother (due to
the 6 color print cartridge) and on the Epson I have yet to really
see any dithering. Hp's photo printouts on the same paper and of
the same photo are good also, but not as good as the Epson's. Up
close you can see the dithering but at a good focal length it is
not all that noticable. I also found the colors on the epson to be
more vivid and natural.

Well thats my 2 cents. I didn't know that my post would cause all
this fuss! Geesh!

-Brent

No problem, Brent. It seems that some people get really radical about their particular machines. I have both HP and Epson printers and I like them both. They both have their strengths and if I could do it all with one printer, I'd have only one. If you read the posts here, many people who have the Epson Photo Stylus printer also have another printer for their "regular" printing jobs. There MUST be a reason for that. I don't know why Thomas would get so upset. The Photo Stylus series was designed to print PHOTOS and they do so very well.

k p · Jul 16, 2001

Daniel said:
I'm not very familiar with these two printers but in the past HP
has used pigment based black ink which have traditionally given
them a darker and richer text. The reason HP prints better on plain
paper is that they use a smaller picoliter per dot and are able to
get better blends at a level that doesn't saturate regular paper.
Because of this and other design issues the HP also uses much less
ink to print and doesn't always require the high end paper; thus
making it a much more affordable over the life of the printer.

i just purchased an Epson 980 and it does exceptionally well with plain paper and black text. it has a 3 picoliter dot size. it isn't as fast as advertised but still faster than anything else i've seen. only 4 color but a friend of mine has a 1270 (six color) and i really can't tell the difference (set to PhotoEnhance4 on photo paper). maybe i should get a magnifying glass? (the 1270 is 1440x720 and the 980 is 2880x720, i wonder if that helps?).

anyways i'm not trying to start a disc on 4 vs 6 color -- just to note that the 3 picoliter on the 980 helps it perform exceptionally on plain paper. (i had an old 740 which always bled on plain paper, 6 picoliter i think)

also 980 has no kill chip so it is CIS/CFS friendly. already installed mine (for the price of two sets of cartridges)

.kevin

TZZDC26562 · Jul 16, 2001

Terry Thorn said:
TZZDC said:

People like Terry with their heightened biased against one company
or product line just in general p i s s me off.

Guess I'll stick to helping out pda users.

http://www.pdanet.net
irc.pdanet.net

pdanet

Click to expand...

Have you looked in the mirror lately, Thomas? You got this thread
where it is because you couldn't STAND someone saying an HP did
anything better than an Epson. You didn't just disagree... you
called the poster a LIAR. He has HIS opinion and you have YOURS.
I'm sure he believes in HIS opinion as much as you do yours. Why is
it that he's a LIAR and you're not? You try to counter as many
pro-HP and pro-Canon statements as you possibly can and you call ME
biased?

Pick a spot Terry Pro Epson or Pro HP... cant post all good things about the printer you love to hate.

I agree the HP is faster, better built, and comes with the print heads with each ink cartridge but that does'nt mean jack. As I've pointed out SOOOO many times the FACT of the matter is Epson produces better PHOTOS/ILLUSTRATION print outs then HP can. This is not simply MY OPINION but it is FACT. And if you cannot face FACTS then I feel you should not post anything more till you face FACTS. Canon on the other hand has earned praise from me but regardless of the resolution in dpi and the individual tanks of ink it STILL shows more dots in the photo then even my Epson 870. Canon has made a new effort to superceed HP in printing quality and they've done a great job at it. I for one felt that the photos that came out of the Canon printer were SHARPER then my Epson and anything like fine DETAIL such as hair were more visible in a photo then my Epson. Despite that fact two things have turned me off, it costs me 20 dollars more to replace the WHOLE set of 6 color ink tanks then it does with my Epson. Sure it seems to save you money in paying for the ink you use but the fact comes down to replaceing the cart and how much money it costs (when I mean cartridge I mean ALL the colors not just 1 color). That coupled with the fact that you HAVE to use the Canon "Pro" paper to get the best quality from the printer has lead me to conclude that I dont want to always buy the "Pro" paper in order to get the maximum quality out of each print. I want to be able to use matte paper or a different companies paper entirely and not worry that my prints would come out not looking their best.

I've choosen Epson because its earned high praise from people around the world. Its a damn shame some people have the orange shift problem and are'nt able to have a photo Epson printer printing their stuff. I'm glad to have bought the Epson 870 and 780 and honestly despite the orange shirt problem I WOULD NOT hesistate to buy Epson again.

Till HP gets off its lazy ass and try to make an effort in producing a better print head (wether it be star shaped nozzles or micro peizo crystals) they will be loosing the interests of more and more pro amature digital photograpers. Also how long has HP been using its printing technology for? I'm not talking about PhotoRET 2 and 3 and so on I'm talking about the SAME inkjet nozzles and the same way of dropping ink on the paper... sounds like they're pulling a Palm here... Same Palm OS it was 5 years ago same UI same stuff.

Believe me till HP gets it through their heads that the only way they will appeal to the digital photographer market is by making a stride to get better quality out of its printers through using 6 or 7 colors and/or a different print head design they've already lost me as a customer.

TZZDC26562 · Jul 16, 2001

I'll get back to you when Phil Askey takes off his little message filters

TZZDC26562 · Jul 16, 2001

In a few cases I've helped out people with Epson printers. I've helped with settings and I've given advice to a friend of mine in Canada that told me the right pda to buy. He now owns the 780 printer and LOVES it. Also it does'nt matter to me how accurate the ink level monitor is as long as its not as bad as Canons where it actually DID NOT WORK. True I can lift up the print cover and look but I thought thats why the ink level indicators are supposed to work.

There goes that flawed statement Terry. Its a FACT that Epsons DO produce a BETTER printout then anything HP can produce from their printers. Seriously this is starting to remind me of some of the people that come into this chat about pdas and begin by telling EVERYONE that Palm is the best PDA on the market right now. Only fools that have been blinded by Palm would claim that. I tell them to take a look at the PocketPC's and come back and start spreading the praise. Same deal here Terry you think the HP produces a better printout then the Epsons AND in SOME cases you go and help the Epson users out and claim that the Epson produces a better print. Which is it Terry HP produces a better printout or Epson cos it simply cant be both of them out do eachother?

So you're telling me the HP brocure paper that HP sells is REALLY plain paper while it claims on the box it's glossy or matte coated and feels just like it?

Also when you print professional looking brochures you usually go for the BEST paper for the job and not the cheapo officemax bright white paper. If you're on a budget and you can kiss quality goodbye I can see you printing out brochures on plain paper. But for me its quality and its always been, I've wanted the perfect inkjet printer and Epsons given it to me. Epsons in the pursuit of being photo lab quality. Did Epson stop at the 870 when people praised it for looking SOOOO much like a photolab print? NO!!! they kept going producing printers with 2880dpi and borderless printing and the next step is the 7 color Epson that has 2 picoliter ink drops. I wonder where HP will be when Epson brings that printer to the US.... hmmm maybe producing a 4 color HP printer with 4 picoliter ink drops still.

Read the above topic on why companies make specialty papers like coated glossy/matte brochure papers.

True but I dont end up printing photos on BOTH sides of the paper so I dont need the duplexer. Also if I need several hundred pages of black text printed I'd rather go down to a kinkos or officemax and have them do it for cheaper.

Thank you for inclining it was my dad but it truely was not. I've printed the same photos he has with the same HP paper and the same 932c and the same settings (minus the over adjusted brightness on the pics) and still the same dotty pics come out. If you believe HP printers produce visibly dotless photos then I'd suggest you get a new 60w light bulb as that table lamp with your 20w light bulb is'nt cutting it

I live with my parents because for one thing I dont have a car and no way of getting myself to Denver to live out my life. The next thing is that where I live its typical of a studio being 1000+ a month for rent and considering how much I love techonlogy (digital cameras, photo printers, computers, pdas, cell phones, etc) I would'nt have any money for rent. Also regarding the two nearly identical printers, hey its always good to have a backup in case it quits (Terry you have an HP AND a Epson so its pretty much the same deal with you, just a different reason I see). No but still I love to randomly print out things. It could be a photo that I've taken a year or two ago that I found a new way to liven up or it could be a web site I want to print out for my mom.

Yes I'm straight and direct Terry I dont like to beat around the bush when someones angering or talking about an issue I dont really want to discuss I will tell whom ever I please to just shut up and if they cant I will bite their head off (not literally).

TZZDC26562 · Jul 16, 2001

k p said:
i just purchased an Epson 980 and it does exceptionally well with
plain paper and black text. it has a 3 picoliter dot size. it
isn't as fast as advertised but still faster than anything else
i've seen. only 4 color but a friend of mine has a 1270 (six
color) and i really can't tell the difference (set to PhotoEnhance4
on photo paper). maybe i should get a magnifying glass? (the 1270
is 1440x720 and the 980 is 2880x720, i wonder if that helps?).

anyways i'm not trying to start a disc on 4 vs 6 color -- just to
note that the 3 picoliter on the 980 helps it perform exceptionally
on plain paper. (i had an old 740 which always bled on plain
paper, 6 picoliter i think)

also 980 has no kill chip so it is CIS/CFS friendly. already
installed mine (for the price of two sets of cartridges)

.kevin

Yeah DPI is'nt going to matter as far as printing goes (dont believe me a 314DPI dye sub printer does a better job at photos then a 2880dpi Epson printer). Theres only specific instances you can really tell the 6 color is going to work over a 4 color in a photo. The 980 is a nice printer and I love the 3 picoliter ink drops that come off it. Also yes its not chipped so the CIS/CFS refills come in quite nicely when you have alot to print out.

Also dont mind the bickering between Terry and I we're just two radical printer users with two different views.

Epson Stylus Photo 785epx

Senior Member

Terry Thorn

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

John Burns

Guest

John Burns

Guest

Senior Member

John Burns

Guest

John Burns

Guest

Senior Member

Terry Thorn

Guest

Terry Thorn

Guest

Member

Terry Thorn

Guest

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts