Why HP Printers are rarely discussed??

I have a feeling they will be discussed heavily, soon.. later this year ;-)

DianeR said:

Have been reading this forum going way back nearly a year and the
printers mostly talked about for printing digital photographs are
Epson and Canon. I'm wondering why there is very little talk about
the photo quality HP printers. I personally use the HP2000cse and
it produces superior prints IMHO. I have used various photo papers
but currently my favorite is the Kodak line. The ink dries quickly
and it has been an economical printer to run. Never would I think
about refilling the ink cartridges -- bite the bullet as they say
and replace with OEM as needed which is not often. Never have had
clogged jets and have not had to replace the printer heads.
Excellent text production and graphics as well. I would love to
print larger than 8x10 or borderless prints but this printer is not
capable of those features. Have had it about 2.5 years. And it
prints quickly. So just kind of wondering why so little input about
the higher end deskjet HPs. Thanks.

Diane

Click to expand...

Well I bought a P100 printer and could not be happier. I guess I am not "nit picky" enough. I keep it on a shelf, and when I decide to print some pictures, I just pull it off, plug it in, pop the flash card from my camera and print. 1,2,3 nice, easy, fast. Even my wife and kids can do it. When done, just unplug it and place it back on the shelf. It can sit there unsued for a month or a week, but the next time I pull it off the shelf it works like a charm. When my in-laws want to print some pictures they just pop their card in, or I bring the printer to them. Everyone who has seen the prints loves them.

Curious about the new HP 4800 dpi printers? I was, so I did a little internet detective work to get a sneak peak at the technology.

You need to translate the Japanese HP website.

First go here to Altavista's tranlsator site:
http://world.altavista.com/

then enter the following japanese url into it's translator field:
http://www.jpn.hp.com/inkjet/dj5550/special.html

Make sure your translator pull-down menu is set to Japense to English.

Looks interesting. Also - if you browse around the site using the alta vista translator, you'll see that HP will release a new Photo Film - I imagine something similar to Pictorico's Hi Gloss White Film.

The translation is a bit choppy due to a computer's interpretation - but I'd like to hear what your thoughts are.

-Michael

nhf7170 said:

DianeR said:

Have been reading this forum going way back nearly a year and the
printers mostly talked about for printing digital photographs are
Epson and Canon. I'm wondering why there is very little talk about
the photo quality HP printers. I personally use the HP2000cse and
it produces superior prints IMHO. I have used various photo papers
but currently my favorite is the Kodak line. The ink dries quickly
and it has been an economical printer to run. Never would I think
about refilling the ink cartridges -- bite the bullet as they say
and replace with OEM as needed which is not often. Never have had
clogged jets and have not had to replace the printer heads.
Excellent text production and graphics as well. I would love to
print larger than 8x10 or borderless prints but this printer is not
capable of those features. Have had it about 2.5 years. And it
prints quickly. So just kind of wondering why so little input about
the higher end deskjet HPs. Thanks.

Diane

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I actually bought an epson 785epx based on all of the hoopla about epson printers here and in other reviews(there was also a $100 rebate). I thought I would get better prints. Well there really isn't much difference. The HP may even do a little better. The HP is certainly faster, quieter and more reliable and a lot easier to refill the cartridges. So I think much of this bias favoring the epsons is just a lot of hogwash.

DianeR said:

Have been reading this forum going way back nearly a year and the
printers mostly talked about for printing digital photographs are
Epson and Canon. I'm wondering why there is very little talk about
the photo quality HP printers. I personally use the HP2000cse and
it produces superior prints IMHO. I have used various photo papers
but currently my favorite is the Kodak line. The ink dries quickly
and it has been an economical printer to run. Never would I think
about refilling the ink cartridges -- bite the bullet as they say
and replace with OEM as needed which is not often. Never have had
clogged jets and have not had to replace the printer heads.
Excellent text production and graphics as well. I would love to
print larger than 8x10 or borderless prints but this printer is not
capable of those features. Have had it about 2.5 years. And it
prints quickly. So just kind of wondering why so little input about
the higher end deskjet HPs. Thanks.

Diane

Click to expand...

I have an HP 2000C printer that I've been using for almost 3 years now. It does exactly what it was designed for, mass quantities of text and color graphics. Note I didn't say photos. I have done some photos on it, but doesn't compare with the old Photosmart 6 color printer that is 1997 technology. I used that old Photosmart up until the day I got my Canon S9000 two months ago. Believe me, there is absolutely NO comparison between the HP 2000C and the Canon S9000.

Rex

csidd said:

I have a 952c and a 1280 from Epson. From my experience the HP
photos fade very fast compared to my 1280. I'm not sure HP has
improved print longevity. If you are not looking for your photos to
last then the HP's are fine IMO. I only print photos with the 1280
and use the HP for documents.

Click to expand...

Any problems at all with the 1280? Cloggings? Do you use original EPSON inks or thord party refills? I still have not made up my mind on which one to buy.

--
Pabletto

http://www.pbase.com/pabletto
(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)
Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

if you get the same quality out of a 6 color printer that you do a 4 color, you are doing something wrong or your pictures are very low megapixel or you have the drivers set up improperly (like having High Speed on). HP lacks borderless capability on different sizes, their paper feed system is flawed when using thicker papers types. I'm sorry, but I have seen HP prints, and they look nothing like the prints that come out of my Epson 785EPX taken with my Nikon Coolipix 995, Print Imagine Matching, Photoshop Elements, printed on Epson premium glossy and heavyweight matte paper.

joenobody said:

DianeR said:

Have been reading this forum going way back nearly a year and the
printers mostly talked about for printing digital photographs are
Epson and Canon. I'm wondering why there is very little talk about
the photo quality HP printers. I personally use the HP2000cse and
it produces superior prints IMHO. I have used various photo papers
but currently my favorite is the Kodak line. The ink dries quickly
and it has been an economical printer to run. Never would I think
about refilling the ink cartridges -- bite the bullet as they say
and replace with OEM as needed which is not often. Never have had
clogged jets and have not had to replace the printer heads.
Excellent text production and graphics as well. I would love to
print larger than 8x10 or borderless prints but this printer is not
capable of those features. Have had it about 2.5 years. And it
prints quickly. So just kind of wondering why so little input about
the higher end deskjet HPs. Thanks.

Diane

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DianeR said:

Have been reading this forum going way back nearly a year and the
printers mostly talked about for printing digital photographs are
Epson and Canon. I'm wondering why there is very little talk about
the photo quality HP printers.

Click to expand...

Diane - Great question!

I've had a Espon which did fantastic photos, but clogging problems were so prevelant that I dumped the fourth replacement in the garbage in less than a year. I replaced it with the Canon s900 about a month ago and, knock on wood, it's been a delight so far. Fabulous prints, no clogging (but slooooow b&w printing of large quantities).

I was just asked by a client to purchase and install a HP printer for their business. I bought the 960 for $200 (half the price of my s900) and installed it. I was blown over by the rich black text and fantastic photo-realistic quality on the cheapest 20# paper one could ever buy.

The HP is quite and the features robust. I never even considered it and I now know that was a mistake. I am VERY happy with my Canon but if I'm ever in the market again for a new printer, HP will be more seriously considered along with the Canon. Epson has forever lost me as a customer so it is out of the question.

Gail

Member said:

The HP is quite

Click to expand...

Sorry for the typo. I meant "quiet!"

g

joenobody said:

I actually bought an epson 785epx based on all of the hoopla about
epson printers here and in other reviews(there was also a $100
rebate). I thought I would get better prints. Well there really
isn't much difference. The HP may even do a little better. The HP
is certainly faster, quieter and more reliable and a lot easier to
refill the cartridges. So I think much of this bias favoring the
epsons is just a lot of hogwash.

Click to expand...

Which HP did you previously own?

--
Pabletto

http://www.pbase.com/pabletto
(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)
Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

and there is NO COMPARISON. The prints from the S9000 look like photographs, plain and simple. Also, take a 2000c print and sneeze on it ... you know what will happen! You can run the Canon prints under water! And borderless 4 x 6 prints can be mixed in with the output from your local one hour ... nobody will notice the difference! I paid big bucks when the 2000c came out ... I wanted the speed, and the quality, at the time, was very good. When I wanted to replace it only Canon and Epson had viable printers, in my opinion.

DianeR said:

Have been reading this forum going way back nearly a year and the
printers mostly talked about for printing digital photographs are
Epson and Canon. I'm wondering why there is very little talk about
the photo quality HP printers. I personally use the HP2000cse and
it produces superior prints IMHO. I have used various photo papers
but currently my favorite is the Kodak line. The ink dries quickly
and it has been an economical printer to run. Never would I think
about refilling the ink cartridges -- bite the bullet as they say
and replace with OEM as needed which is not often. Never have had
clogged jets and have not had to replace the printer heads.
Excellent text production and graphics as well. I would love to
print larger than 8x10 or borderless prints but this printer is not
capable of those features. Have had it about 2.5 years. And it
prints quickly. So just kind of wondering why so little input about
the higher end deskjet HPs. Thanks.

Diane

Click to expand...

grrick said:

their paper feed system is flawed when using thicker papers types

Click to expand...

Yeah, so? The Canon has a direct feeding system but can not print on heavier media either? So, what if the option is there, but you can not use it? I have out quite heavy media through my HP without any problems. And never had any paper jamming problems with this system either.

--
Pabletto

http://www.pbase.com/pabletto
(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)
Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

I am referring to the front load 180 degree paper feed system. It can be problematic with thick papers

Pabletto said:

grrick said:

their paper feed system is flawed when using thicker papers types

Click to expand...

Yeah, so? The Canon has a direct feeding system but can not print
on heavier media either? So, what if the option is there, but you
can not use it? I have out quite heavy media through my HP without
any problems. And never had any paper jamming problems with this
system either.

--
Pabletto

http://www.pbase.com/pabletto
(samples taken with the MINOLTA DiMAGE 7)
Last update 26 February 2002 (MORE food photos)

Click to expand...

Problem printers? Canon S-800, HP 932C. Numerous HP's also in and around the office. No problems.

Prints from the Canon are FAR more than "marginally better". Depends on what you are looking for I guess. I don't own a loupe, so I wouldn't know how they look under a loupe. I did the "pepsi" challange when I got my S800 with everyone who came to my house (and I have 100's of pics printed with the 932C). Not ONE single person failed to notice a difference. There were 2 comments from everyone (some were technical people and some were not): 1. Heh, took some pics to the lab huh? and 2. Got a new printer huh? Not bad for "marginal". Personally, I would classify marginal as most likely to go unnoticed. BUT, it's all anecdotal, isn't it.

So, do you own one of the current Canon printers? Or Epson? Just curious.

As always, just my opinion...

johnD1 said:

Problem printers are discussed very often on this forum. HP
printers are rarely a problem so whats to post about?
Epson and Canon users have to stroke each other on a daily basis to
assure each other that their purchase was justified and that their
printer is indeed the best.
Actually HP users know that Canon and Epson printers do produce
marginally better prints although a 2X magnifier would be needed to
tell the difference, but we feel that the hassle of clogged heads
and other reliability problems just aren't worth the supposedly
slightly better printing quality.
I can tell you that either one of my Hp's 932c and 940c both look
as good as the prints I get from Wal mart on line or Photo
access.com.
John

Click to expand...

--
Another happy Olympus E-10 owner.
http://www.pbase.com/daughertydon

Hey what ever floats your boat cos in the end we all know who makes the best photo printers out on the market now.... Epson and Canon. Also if you need a 2x lupe to see the difference you'd better visit your optometrist and get those eyes checked and ohhh dont try driving

On a serious note here the Epsons and Canons with their 6 color inks DO print out pictures that appear smoother in tone then a 4 color HP ever could. If you like I could conduct a test here around my town as to which picture (Printed from a Epson 785EPX and HP 932C) looks closer to a real photograph and I could use skin tones to demonstrate.

How does it feel knowing that HP is FINALLY putting out a printer that prints nearly as good if not slightly better then a 2 year old Epson Stylus Photo 870 and get this its 2 years too late for HP.

By the time HP releases the printer Epson's going to have the PM 950-C a "7" color printer with 2 picoliter ink drops (the 2 year old 870 and the current generation Epson and canons are 4 picoliter and soon the new HP printers coming out) and a paper cutter built in.

Lets all face it HP's out of it as far as photos go and they dont even dare focus really on photographers. I'm sure they have some market research department that finally nagged about a 6 color photo printer to compete but when the new Epsons come out its going to be the final nail in HP's cofin as far as photos go.

Jealus again I see

Terry you've never meet me in real life and you've never heard me talk to the customers that come in looking for products. So far I'm about (and I quote) "the only person around here that knows what I'm doing". That may not mean much to you but it does for me and if I recommend an Epson to a customer or someone on this site then you've got to have faith that I'm doing it simply because Epsons are better at photos then HP's and I'm sure that people can deal with clogging of the print heads after they've heard it from me telling them about the problem.

dan said:

I own an HP 932c and an Epson Photo 820. Both printers deliver
outstanding results. It's very hard to tell the difference between
the two. The 820 has an edge, but you need to sit and stare or use
a loupe to see the differences to be honest. I use the 820 for
Epson Matte Paper printing cause this paper is cheap, has a long
life, excellant brightness rating and is good for framing. For
glossy I pefer the HP, it's paper feels and looks prints from a lab
and HP color is always on the mark. The Epson doesn't always
deliver consistant color and the HP is faster.

Click to expand...

Got a 932c and for me it was always grainy looking prints (I'm sure Terry can back me up as far as my posts on the subject go). I have a 870 and 785EPX that I churn prints out from and yes they do come close as far as the quality but while my clients dont use lupe's to examine the prints I've put out from the 932c and 785EPX they do comment that the HP simply looks slightly grainier then the Epson prints but they're easily impressed with both. I could send anyone of you a sample of the test page I'm using to compare the two. As far as Glossy printing you might try the Kodak papers, the ultima papers seem to do quite nicely as do some of the Jet Print Photo papers also. I'm trying out Photoshop 7 and ProPhoto RGB as a color profile and I'm going to see if the Jet Print papers produce any better quality then the kodak papers.

Ahh thank heaven for a copy center you can expense out paper and try it out as far as the quality goes then show customers what the prints would look like on the paper.

firekat said:

After having purchased a Epson Color Stylus I vowed never to get
another Epson Printer. Bad print quality, paper jams, paper feed
problems, noisy and the color was an absolute joke.

Click to expand...

Seems like a typical pro HP response but lets probe this a bit farther..
What model of Epson was it?
How old was the machine?

Its a 4 color machine I dont expect much out of it as far as a Epson stylus goes..

Could be just user error, hate to say it but some people just dont know.

firekat said:

I now have a HP 960 and have probably done more printing on it in
the last 3 months than all the printing that I did on that POS
Epson the whole time I had it (years)

Click to expand...

Typical pro-HP response again bashing the Epson but touting the HP. And yes your claim of printing more on the HP is valid but if you're comparing an OLD Epson (maybe around the 600/700/800 line) to the HP 960 then thats typical response of Epson = POS and HP = God.

firekat said:

The HP just keeps plugging along. I didn't have the bucks to buy
both a photo printer and a general purpose printer. The text
output from the HP is phenomenal and the picture output is pretty
good. The machine is a good dual purpose machine. It prints on
anything, and I don't have to fiddle with it, and it isn't
constantly cleaning the (pesky-edited for content) print heads like
that stinking Epson.

Click to expand...

HP's do keep on plugging right along but eventually quit after a year or so maybe longer. I've got a 940 that aside from making slight noise when the print head moves along the bar prints good pictures. The DeskJet 990 = POJ (Piece of Junk) always seems to either jam/misalign at the very bottom of the document/ take 2 sheets at a time/ and finally skews the paper and does'nt produce a even line/print. Now this has been going on and we've replaced the 990 3 times already (on our 3rd one) and they come from different shipments sometimes a month apart. I'd honestly expect better from a 300 dollar printer myself. I rarely have to fiddle with my 785 or 870 huh... odd. Cleaning the print heads heh only had to do that 2 times so far.

firekat said:

I am running Kodak Premium Picture Paper and prints look fine. I
am sure that the output on some of the other machines will exceed
it, but for $200.00 I am getting my money's worth.

Click to expand...

Kodak makes NICE papers as far as the whole line of papers. The 2 sided semi gloss seems to have more of a warmness or magenta cast (slightly, enough to notice but not enough to whine about) to it and so far Kodak papers have been my choice as far as what to recommend to customers so far.

firekat said:

If HP's new 5000 series printers review well I might sink some
bucks into that. From what I read with the ability to load
specific purpose tanks, I won't have to buy a photo printer AND a
text printer.

Click to expand...

Nice little feature I have to admit

firekat said:

And yes, I don't see a lot of posts on this board regarding the
HP's. Most that I see regarding the other printers all relates to
problems!

Click to expand...

HP's have problems too but this is'nt really the place to be taking them since most take them to http://www.hp.com

firekat said:

Here's to my little ol' HP to keep plugging along!

Click to expand...

My 2 year old 870's chuggin along beautifully lets compare 2 years down the road shal we.

joenobody said:

I actually bought an epson 785epx based on all of the hoopla about
epson printers here and in other reviews(there was also a $100
rebate). I thought I would get better prints. Well there really
isn't much difference. The HP may even do a little better. The HP
is certainly faster, quieter and more reliable and a lot easier to
refill the cartridges. So I think much of this bias favoring the
epsons is just a lot of hogwash.

Click to expand...

Got the 785EPX and all I can hear from my copymax supervisor (been doing photography for 30-35 years) is those are some of the best prints I've seen off a inkjet printer. He owns a 1270 at home since he's gotten into digital photography and thinking of doing weddings with a pair of F707's or the new Nikons that have come out the 5700 and either his 1270 or a 2200 (he wants the longetivity). The HP and Epson prints that I have up in my store just prove that he Epson prints are smoother and in general better looking then the HP. I usually ask potential customers why spend 100 dollars more on second rate photo quality and yes the proof is right there in front of him and no I dont like skewing photos to favor one printer. Actually got pissed off at a co worker for posting several of my 870 printed photos right behind several of the HP printers. If anyones ever in Summity County in Colorado come on down to OfficeMax and see the prints if not I could post the link to the D1X photo I used and the profile I used can be posted on my web site along with info about what photoshop version I used along with what settings and if any adjustments were made.


Just trying to defend the misconceptions about the Epson printers.