What about the HP PhotoSmart Photo Printer?

All I want is a perfect printer for photos. I have my b/w laser. I have an old reliable 3-color cartridge Canon for "stuff". Now, I want a great photo printer. I had 3 Epson Stylus Color 900s that I returned, all in a week. They had horrible banding problems. It was as if the print-head did not move, and every half inch, there was a darker line across the width of the page.

So, I visit the forums. And I have heard nothing about the HP PhotoSmart Photo Printer. I have a Canon C-2000 Zoom, but don't want to settle for the 4x6 prints from the P-330 (?). Also, I do not want the printouts to fade over time.

Where is the printer/paper combination for me?

OOPS! That is an Olympus, not a Canon! Damn, that is the second post I've done that!

From my "in-the-store" testing of the Photosmart printer my 2-bits is that it is an excellent photo printer. Period. On glossy paper, you can't beat it for photos. However, don't expect to do anything else with it. It lays down -way- too much ink for any other documents and saturates plain paper. It's also glacier-slow.

So... I'd say since you are fortunate to have other printers for document purposes, it could be a good fit for you. For me, I'm real happy with my HP 722C. On glossy paper, it's mighty close to the Photosmart and it works great as a document printer too. At work we have an 1120C, which will do up to 11x17 prints. Awesome! Some people swear by the Epson line for photo printing. Must confess, I have no experience here, but I find getting HP ink cartridges far easier.

Rick Ohnsman
[email protected]

PWS said:

All I want is a perfect printer for photos. I have my b/w laser. I have
an old reliable 3-color cartridge Canon for "stuff". Now, I want a great
photo printer. I had 3 Epson Stylus Color 900s that I returned, all in a
week. They had horrible banding problems. It was as if the print-head did
not move, and every half inch, there was a darker line across the width
of the page.

So, I visit the forums. And I have heard nothing about the HP PhotoSmart
Photo Printer. I have a Canon C-2000 Zoom, but don't want to settle for
the 4x6 prints from the P-330 (?). Also, I do not want the printouts to
fade over time.

Where is the printer/paper combination for me?

Click to expand...

Thanks Rick, but the more I search, the more confused that I get. Now, my hot button is the ALPS MD-5000.

Why is there no great comparison reviews of the "dedicated?" photo printers?

The ALPS? Really? I just hope you have a good source for the special ribbon cartridges! I've learned with many purchases to beware of things for which the "consumables" may be of questionable supply / price.

I to this day maintain that Beta was a superior format to VHS video, but I'm glad I didn't invest in a Sony Betamax VCR!!

Rick Ohnsman
True Light Words & Pictures
[email protected]

PWS said:

Thanks Rick, but the more I search, the more confused that I get. Now, my
hot button is the ALPS MD-5000.

Why is there no great comparison reviews of the "dedicated?" photo printers?

Click to expand...

PWS:

Just read your posted discussion on the Alps MD-5000 vs. HP Photosmart printer. I don't have the MD-5000, but I do have both the MD-1300 and the HP Photosmart printer. The reason I have both is that 1) the print quality of the MD-1300 was unreliable (occasionally I get strips or bands of colors running across the page b/c they didn't line up right); 2) it was too costly vs. the HP in terms of ink and photo paper; and 3) the color saturation was much, much better on the HP.

If the issue is which printer is more versatile (i.e. combo B&W text printing and photos), the Alps is a better choice b/c it will handle a variety of paper sizes, including custom sizes, and you can use 1 black ribbon cartridge to do the job. The HP only takes predetermined HP paper sizes (i.e. HP's 4x6 paper, 8x10 paper, etc.) and if you're only printing black text, you will waste one of the 2 ink cartridges (HP divides the 6 colors up in 2 ink cartridges).

Luckily, I have the luxury of having both printers and a laser printer as well. My recommendation is to go with the HP if you're just printing photos and calendars and stuff like that. It is a great printer and I am very pleased with it. I have printed over 150+ 8x10 sized pictures on 1 set of ink cartridges.

Sean

PWS said:

Thanks Rick, but the more I search, the more confused that I get. Now, my
hot button is the ALPS MD-5000.

Why is there no great comparison reviews of the "dedicated?" photo printers?

Click to expand...

I have been using the HP Photosmart printer for about a year. I highly recomend this printer, the print quality is superb and the HP papper puts every outher papper to shame. I have prints that have been up on my walls for a year and have shown no signs of fading. There ink and papper are availiable from all Office Depots and Office Max stores. I have an epson photo printer allso but do not use it as the prints FADE Badly.

Anthony...

Was curious if you have had this experience... I printed some photos with my HP 722c (not the Photosmart, but mighty close in quality) on Kodak glossy paper. I framed one and one day it was in the hot sun. The photo "sweated" and left moisture all over the glass of the frame. It rather ruined the picture. Have you had any experience leaving Photosmart prints in the direct sunlight. Do they show this almost "melting"-like quality?

Thanks...

Rick Ohnsman
[email protected]

Anthony Levene said:

I have been using the HP Photosmart printer for about a year. I highly
recomend this printer, the print quality is superb and the HP papper puts
every outher papper to shame. I have prints that have been up on my walls
for a year and have shown no signs of fading. There ink and papper are
availiable from all Office Depots and Office Max stores. I have an epson
photo printer allso but do not use it as the prints FADE Badly.

Click to expand...

I have the ALPS MD500 with dye sublimation add-on. The quality is fabulous and I haven't had a banding problem. While the supplies are a little expensive and the printing a little slow, I only use it for photos since I have other printers, and I know I'll never have a fading problem and most people can't tell I printed the pictures myself.

Also, for things where perfect isn't necessary, I use Vphoto mode and paper and the prints are still fabulous.

David

PWS said:

OOPS! That is an Olympus, not a Canon! Damn, that is the second post I've
done that!

Click to expand...

I too have had the PhotoSmart printer since it first came out. I love it. I've tried other photo papers..but find the PhotoSmart paper to be superior. I also have a HP895Cse that is faster and the pictures O.K....but for the picturews I really care about...The PhotoSmart does it for me. Joan K

Rick Ohnsman said:

Was curious if you have had this experience... I printed some photos
with my HP 722c (not the Photosmart, but mighty close in quality) on
Kodak glossy paper. I framed one and one day it was in the hot sun. The
photo "sweated" and left moisture all over the glass of the frame. It
rather ruined the picture. Have you had any experience leaving
Photosmart prints in the direct sunlight. Do they show this almost
"melting"-like quality?

Thanks...

Rick Ohnsman
[email protected]

Anthony Levene said:

I have been using the HP Photosmart printer for about a year. I highly
recomend this printer, the print quality is superb and the HP papper puts
every outher papper to shame. I have prints that have been up on my walls
for a year and have shown no signs of fading. There ink and papper are
availiable from all Office Depots and Office Max stores. I have an epson
photo printer allso but do not use it as the prints FADE Badly.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The best place to find out about printers is the printing site that is listed in the "links" sectioin on this site, http://come.to/digitaldarkroom in Singapore. They refer to lots of other sites as well. Be warned, however, that these guys all seem to conclude that the Epson 750 Photo Stylus (or 1200) is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't have a Photosmart, but do note that my 750 produces amazing prints, and that HP's model has been out awhile. Note also that PC Magazine (check their reviews online) awhile back picked the HP 895 as the best photo printer, a conclusion which no doubt has been superceded by release of newer models (but no new Photsmart model as I recall).

The Singapore site makes quite clear from some 20x blowup comparisons (or link to a site with them) that the Epson 750/1200 technology is better than other Epsons for photos.

If permanence is the key, the site refers to an ink seller site which sells Epson cartridges filled with archival ink at c. $40 per cartridge, as well as bulk refill kits, two brands of ink.

BTW, "glossy film" is noticeably better than any photo paper, in my experience, except that it costs twice as much. A note somewhere on the Singapore web site says 20-30% better, which seems right to me.

Dave Anderson

PWS said:

All I want is a perfect printer for photos. I have my b/w laser. I have
an old reliable 3-color cartridge Canon for "stuff". Now, I want a great
photo printer. I had 3 Epson Stylus Color 900s that I returned, all in a
week. They had horrible banding problems. It was as if the print-head did
not move, and every half inch, there was a darker line across the width
of the page.

So, I visit the forums. And I have heard nothing about the HP PhotoSmart
Photo Printer. I have a Canon C-2000 Zoom, but don't want to settle for
the 4x6 prints from the P-330 (?). Also, I do not want the printouts to
fade over time.

Where is the printer/paper combination for me?

Click to expand...

In this month's computer shopper, they do about 7 photo printer comparisons.

Rick Ohnsman said:

I to this day maintain that Beta was a superior format to VHS
video, but I'm glad I didn't invest in a Sony Betamax VCR!!

Rick Ohnsman
True Light Words & Pictures
[email protected]

PWS said:

Thanks Rick, but the more I search, the more confused that I get. Now, my
hot button is the ALPS MD-5000.

Why is there no great comparison reviews of the "dedicated?" photo printers?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And the article may indeed be worth checking out, I don't know if you realize you have just ressurected a 3.5 year old thread...

amy blumhardt said:

Rick Ohnsman said:

I to this day maintain that Beta was a superior format to VHS
video, but I'm glad I didn't invest in a Sony Betamax VCR!!

Rick Ohnsman
True Light Words & Pictures
[email protected]

PWS said:

Thanks Rick, but the more I search, the more confused that I get. Now, my
hot button is the ALPS MD-5000.

Why is there no great comparison reviews of the "dedicated?" photo printers?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots.

Favorite Quote: 'Never let the quest for the Perfect become the enemy of the Excellent'